RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW OF ORDERS DENYING REMAND MOTIONS
Rory Ryan, Luke Meier, and Jeremy Counseller*
I.
II.
An Order Denying a Remand Motion Is Not Immediately
Appealable As of Right but May Be Eligible for
Discretionary Interlocutory Appeal. ......................................737
A. The Final-Judgment Rule ................................................738
B. An Order Denying a Remand Motion Does Not Meet
the Categorical Exceptions to the Final-Judgment
Rule. ................................................................................741
C. The Order Denying a Remand Motion May Be
Immediately Appealed Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b),
but Only with District Court Approval. ..........................743
Except in Extraordinary Circumstances, Mandamus Will
Not Lie To Correct an Order Denying a Remand Motion
Because Remand Movants Have an Adequate Remedy by
Appeal. ...................................................................................746
A. A Movant Complaining of the Denial of a
Jurisdiction-Based Remand Motion Has an Adequate
Remedy by Appeal. .........................................................749
1. Appeal After Final Judgment Is an Adequate
Remedy Because an Appellate Court Can Vacate
the Lower-Court Decision..........................................749
2. The Time and Expense of Trial Does Not Make
Post-Judgment Appeal an Inadequate Remedy..........750
3. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Its Place in the AppellateJurisdiction Structure Counsel Against CourtInitiated Expansion of the Mandamus Remedy in
*Rory Ryan, Professor of Law, Baylor Law School; Luke Meier, Associate Professor, Baylor
Law School; Jeremy Counseller, Professor of Law, Baylor Law School. The Authors would like
to thank Andrea Mehta for her research help and for the following people for reviewing earlier
drafts or collaborating on the amicus brief that gave rise to this article: Dustin Benham, Deborah
Challener, Scott Dodson, James Pfander, W. Charles Rocky Rhodes, and Evelyn Wilson.
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
735
This Context. ..............................................................754
B. Mandamus Is Not Appropriate to Review the Denial
of a Remand Motion Asserting Nonjurisdictional
Grounds ...........................................................................759
The Statutory Surroundings Support a Limited Role for
Mandamus in Reviewing Denied Remand Motions. .............770
A. Allowing Mandamus Review of Remand Denials
Disrupts the No-Review Congruity Congress Desired
and Enacted in the Remand Context. ..............................771
B. Collateral-Order Doctrine ...............................................776
C. Rulemaking Delegation ...................................................777
Conclusion .............................................................................780
III.
IV.
When can an appellate court review a district court’s denial of a remand
motion before a final judgment? Surprisingly little has been written on this
topic, especially compared to how much has been written on the review of a
district court’s grant of a remand motion.1 But recent developments in the
Fifth Circuit, including a case in which we participated as amicus,2 provide
a fine case study for addressing these questions. Our goal here is to guide
judges and lawyers in answering the opening question. Our short answer is
that a remand denial is not inherently different from the typical
interlocutory ruling, and therefore a party must follow the ordinary
appellate methods prescribed by Congress: either await final judgment or
obtain certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).3 Mandamus review is
generally unavailable because the petitioner has an adequate remedy by
appeal. Neither the time, hassle, and expense of enduring trial, nor the
possibility that the appeal might ultimately prove unsuccessful render the
appellate remedy inadequate.
1
15A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3914.11 (2d
ed. 1992); see, e.g., Thomas R. Hrdlick, Appellate Review of Remand Orders in Removed Cases:
Are They Losing a Certain Appeal?, 82 MARQ. L. REV. 535 (1999); James E. Pfander, Collateral
Review of Remand Orders: Reasserting the Supervisory Role of the Supreme Court, 159 U. PA. L.
REV. 493 (2011); Thomas C. Goodhue, Note, Appellate Review of Remand Orders: A
Substantive/Jurisdictional Conundrum, 91 IOWA L. REV. 1319 (2006).
2
In re Crystal Power Co., 641 F.3d 78, 82 (5th Cir.), opinion withdrawn and superseded by
641 F.3d 82 (5th Cir. 2011).
3
See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006).
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
736
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
Typically, a ruling on a motion to remand occurs long before a merits
disposition.4 A district judge’s denial of such a remand motion raises a
difficult policy question that accompanies all important interlocutory
rulings: should the litigant have immediate access to review by an appellate
court, or should the litigant have to first endure a trial on the merits that
may ultimately be nullified because the remand ruling was erroneous?
Congress has specifically addressed this policy issue for orders granting
a motion to remand with a statute that prohibits most appellate review.5
Although no statute specifically targets appellate review of a remand denial,
several generally applicable laws shape the inquiry. A remand denial is, of
course, an interlocutory order.6 Congress has decided, via the finaljudgment rule,7 that interlocutory orders are not generally appealable unless
they fit certain narrow substantive categories into which remand denials do
not fall8 or unless the district judge certifies the interlocutory question to the
court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).9 Thus, the answer to the
opening question might seem, on first impression, relatively clear—an
appeal lies from a remand denial only if an interlocutory appeal is certified
under § 1292(b).
Mandamus, however, muddies this clarity. When appeal is forbidden by
the final-judgment rule and not certified under § 1292(b), appellate lawyers
have often sought—and sometimes obtained—a writ of mandamus to obtain
4
See WRIGHT ET AL., supra note 1, at § 3914.11.
28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) provides: “An order remanding a case to the State court from which it
was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise . . . .” Despite the clarity of this
congressional restriction, the Supreme Court was unable to resist the early temptation of
reviewing a remand order when a district judge remanded a case because his docket was too
crowded. See Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 340–41 (1976), abrogated
in part by Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996). Bad facts make bad law, and
both the Court and scholars are still trying to fix this problem, which resulted when the Court
rejected Congress’s balancing. See, e.g., Pfander, supra note 1, at 493 (describing the “quiet
crisis” created by the Supreme Court’s treatment of the appellate review of remand orders).
6
See, e.g., Estate of Bishop ex rel. Bishop v. Bechtel Power Corp., 905 F.2d 1272, 1275 (9th
Cir. 1990) (holding that the denial of a remand order is not a final judgment and that the court thus
lacked jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a remand denial).
7
28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006); see also Headrick v. Toledo Trust Co., No. 86-3772, 1986 WL
18536, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 15, 1986) (“Federal courts of appeal do not have jurisdiction of
interlocutory orders under 28 U.S.C. section 1291.”).
8
See infra Part I.B.
9
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (2006); see infra Part I.C.
5
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
737
immediate review.10
This misuse of mandamus upsets Congress’s
appellate-jurisdiction calibration and misunderstands the writ’s primary
limitation.11 Mandamus may issue only when a litigant has no other
adequate remedy on appeal.12 There is nothing inherently unique about
denied remand motions, however, that renders inadequate a litigant’s other
avenues for appellate consideration, such as an appeal after a final judgment
or a certification under § 1292(b).13 Federal appellate courts have offered
two different reasons why mandamus is necessary to review denied remand
motions, but neither of these arguments survives close scrutiny.14
Part I begins our inquiry with an explanation of why an order denying a
remand motion is not immediately appealable as of right but may, under
certain circumstances, be certified by the district court and court of appeals
for immediate interlocutory appeal. Part II explains why mandamus is
generally unavailable to review an order denying remand. The conclusion
in Part II requires a discussion of the perplexing questions that arise
regarding the difference between remand motions based on subject-matter
jurisdiction and those based on other grounds. Finally, in Part III, we
summarize our conclusion and demonstrate how the general unavailability
of immediate appellate review is consistent with overlapping and related
areas of removal-remand and appellate law.
I.
AN ORDER DENYING A REMAND MOTION IS NOT IMMEDIATELY
APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT BUT MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR
DISCRETIONARY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL.
The material in this Part is uncontroversial but foundational. The
conclusion reached in this Part about the availability of interlocutory
appeals is easy to state. An order denying remand is not a final judgment
and does not qualify for any categorical exceptions to the final-judgment
rule, but it may be appealable via a discretionary interlocutory appeal.
Nevertheless, the process of reaching this conclusion should not be skipped
because it is critical to an understanding of the more difficult questions
10
See, e.g., In re Hot-Hed Inc., 477 F.3d 320, 322–23 (5th Cir. 2007).
Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976) (“A judicial readiness
to issue the writ of mandamus in anything less than an extraordinary situation would run the real
risk of defeating the very policies sought to be furthered by that judgment of Congress.”).
12
Id.
13
See infra Part II.
14
See infra Part II.
11
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
738
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
involving mandamus in Part II. Because mandamus’s availability depends
upon whether there is an “adequate remedy by appeal,” we begin by
examining Congress’s appellate-remedy structure.
A. The Final-Judgment Rule
The first principle of appellate jurisdiction is the final-judgment rule.15
This rule derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which grants (and by negative
implication limits) the appellate jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to
review of “final decisions of district courts.”16 A final judgment is one that
disposes of all claims against all parties17 and is one by which a “district
court disassociates itself from a case” either formally18 or practically.19 The
final-judgment rule does not render interlocutory rulings forever
15
The Supreme Court has recognized the historic development of the final-judgment rule:
Finality as a condition of review is an historic characteristic of federal appellate
procedure. It was written into the first Judiciary Act and has been departed from only
when observance of it would practically defeat the right to any review at all. Since the
right to a judgment from more than one court is a matter of grace and not a necessary
ingredient of justice, Congress from the very beginning has, by forbidding piecemeal
disposition on appeal of what for practical purposes is a single controversy, set itself
against enfeebling judicial administration. Thereby is avoided the obstruction to just
claims that would come from permitting the harassment and cost of a succession of
separate appeals from the various rulings to which a litigation may give rise, from its
initiation to entry of judgment. To be effective, judicial administration must not be
leaden-footed. Its momentum would be arrested by permitting separate reviews of the
component elements in a unified cause.
Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 324–25 (1940) (footnotes omitted); see also Robert J.
Martineau, Defining Finality and Appealability by Court Rule: Right Problem, Wrong Solution, 54
U. PITT. L. REV. 717, 726–29 (1993) (tracing the development of the final-judgment rule as a
mainstay of federal appellate jurisdiction).
16
28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006); Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 429 (1985).
17
See Bonner v. Perry, 564 F.3d 424, 427 (6th Cir. 2009).
18
Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599, 604–05 (2009) (quoting Swint v.
Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 42 (1995)).
19
See Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 713–14 (1996) (finding an order
functionally indistinguishable from a final judgment when it put the litigants effectively out of
federal court). Although the Court has frequently stated that the final decision must “end[] the
litigation on the merits,” e.g., Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945), this definition
does not fairly encompass orders that end the federal suit but do not end litigation on the merits.
For example, as the Court noted in Quackenbush, remanding a case to state court ends the federal
suit and is a final judgment under § 1291 despite being in tension with the Catlin formulation.
517 U.S. at 714; see also Benson v. SI Handling Sys., Inc., 188 F.3d 780, 782 (7th Cir. 1999).
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
739
unreviewable. Instead, the rule generally prohibits the litigant from
appealing decisions immediately.20 In other words, via the final-judgment
rule Congress has limited a party “to a single appeal, to be deferred until
final judgment has been entered, in which claims of district court error at
any stage of the litigation may be ventilated.”21
Unlike a remand grant, a remand denial is not a final judgment.22 When
a district judge grants a remand motion, it disassociates itself from the case
and finally ends the federal proceeding.23 Thus, an order remanding a case
is appealable as a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, though 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(d) will bar all but a few of those appeals.24 Conversely, a denied
remand motion does not disassociate the federal court from the case or
dispose of all parties and all claims. Indeed, it does the opposite: it
commits the federal court to resolving the parties’ claims. Accordingly,
“[o]ne aspect of appealing orders as to removal and remand remains
blessedly simple. An order denying remand is not final.”25
Thus, the final-judgment rule treats a remand denial like most other
interlocutory orders: a district judge’s decision to deny a motion to remand
cannot be reviewed immediately but can be reviewed after the court
disposes of all claims and all parties.26 A plaintiff need not take further
20
Quackenbush, 517 U.S. at 712.
Id. (quoting Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 868 (1994)). See,
e.g., Whitt v. Sherman Int’l Corp., 147 F.3d 1325, 1333 (11th Cir. 1998) (vacating the underlying
final judgment because of an improper denial of a jurisdiction-based remand motion).
22
Rohrer, Hibler & Replogle, Inc. v. Perkins, 728 F.2d 860, 861 (7th Cir. 1984) (per curiam)
(“An order denying a motion to remand a case to state court cannot, by any stretch of the
imagination, be considered ‘final’ within the meaning of § 1291.”) (citing Chi., Rock Island &
Pac. R.R. Co. v. Stude, 346 U.S 574, 578 (1954)).
23
In re FMC Corp. Packaging Sys. Div., 208 F.3d 445, 449 (3d Cir. 2000); Benson, 188 F.3d
at 782. Although the Supreme Court once concluded that only mandamus could be used to
challenge an order granting remand, Thermtron Prods. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 352–53
(1976), it later “reversed that conclusion,” and it is now clear that a remand grant is final under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. See Quackenbush, 517 U.S. at 713; In re FMC, 208 F.3d at 449; Benson, 188
F.3d at 782.
24
28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006); see also Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 129 S. Ct.
1862, 1865–66 (2009); Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224, 229 (2007).
25
See WRIGHT ET AL., supra note 1, at § 3914.11. It is worth noting here that the “blessedly
simple” description of finality is clouded by the collateral-order doctrine, which pretends that
certain orders are final and which we briefly discuss in Part III.B.
26
See Chi., Rock Island & Pac. R.R. Co., 346 U.S. at 578; B., Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co.,
663 F.2d 545, 548 (5th Cir. Unit A Dec. 1981); WRIGHT ET AL., supra note 1, at § 3914.11 (“The
denial of remand is reviewable on appeal from the final judgment, following the ordinary rule that
21
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
740
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
steps to preserve error—the denial of the remand motion preserves error for
appeal after final judgment.27
The final-judgment rule represents the congressional solution to one of
our procedural system’s most difficult problems: balancing the casespecific inefficiencies created by delaying challenges until after final
judgment with the system-wide inefficiencies created by authorizing
interlocutory challenges.28
At a client-specific level, the balance is often difficult to explain. A
client who loses a significant trial ruling is not always comforted by
assurances of a future do-over after spending money to endure a trial.
Whenever the final-judgment rule surfaces in the context of a particular
factual scenario, it is tempting to side with the litigant who faces the time
and expense of facing a trial that may be for naught.29 But there are fragile
and competing concerns that impact the macroefficiency of our adversarial
system.30 Most litigants who lose rulings believe judges are wrong. At a
interlocutory orders merge in the final judgment.”).
27
See Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 74 (1996). Strategically, however, plaintiffs
should consider the discussion in the next Part regarding “adequate remedies by appeal” to
determine whether their objection is practically preserved when the remand motion is based on a
nonjurisdictional ground. See infra Part II.B.
28
Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263–64 (1984) (“The final judgment rule serves
several important interests. It helps preserve the respect due trial judges by minimizing appellatecourt interference with the numerous decisions they must make in the prejudgment stages of
litigation. It reduces the ability of litigants to harass opponents and to clog the courts through a
succession of costly and time-consuming appeals. It is crucial to the efficient administration of
justice.”); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 374 (1981) (quoting Cobbledick
v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 325 (1940)) (“[The final-judgment rule] serves a number of
important purposes. It emphasizes the deference that appellate courts owe to the trial judge as the
individual initially called upon to decide the many questions of law and fact that occur in the
course of a trial. Permitting piecemeal appeals would undermine the independence of the district
judge, as well as the special role that individual plays in our judicial system. In addition, the rule
is in accordance with the sensible policy of ‘avoid[ing] the obstruction to just claims that would
come from permitting the harassment and cost of a succession of separate appeals from the
various rulings to which a litigation may give rise, from its initiation to entry of judgment.’”);
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 170 (1974) (“Restricting appellate review to ‘final
decisions’ prevents the debilitating effect on judicial administration caused by piecemeal appellate
disposition of what is, in practical consequence, but a single controversy.”).
29
See e.g., In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 319 (5th Cir. 2008) (finding that
there was no adequate remedy for denial of a motion to transfer venue because “the harm—
inconvenience to witnesses, parties and other—will already have been done by the time the case is
tried and appealed, and the prejudice suffered cannot be put back in the bottle.”).
30
See, e.g., Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Stewart, 476 F.2d 755, 765 (2d Cir. 1973) (Timbers, J.,
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
741
case-specific level it is tempting to allow Joe Client to challenge now at
least all potentially dispositive or forum-changing rulings. But that ignores
what would happen if Joe Client, Jane Client, and every Client could each
challenge immediately every adverse denial of a motion for summary
judgment, motion to dismiss, motion to remand, motion to exclude, etc.
Plenty has been written about how the balance ought to be resolved,31
but for our purposes it is sufficient to observe that Congress has resolved
it.32 But the final-judgment rule was not enacted as a stand-alone, harsh
solution to the balancing problem. Instead, Congress also recognized that
the rule created undue hardship when applied to certain types of rulings.33
Accordingly, Congress created categorical exceptions to the final-judgment
rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), which authorizes certain interlocutory appeals.
B. An Order Denying a Remand Motion Does Not Meet the
Categorical Exceptions to the Final-Judgment Rule.
A party attempting an interlocutory appeal must locate a statute
authorizing it.34 The final-judgment rule is a congressional restriction on
federal appellate jurisdiction.35 Because that statute generally prevents
interlocutory appeals, a litigant wanting an interlocutory appeal must locate
a statute authorizing an exception to Congress’s restriction.36
dissenting) (“Our practice has been to balance the policy underlying the final judgment rule
against the claim in an individual case that justice and the effective administration of our courts
demands immediate review.”).
31
E.g., Timothy B. Dyk, Supreme Court Review of Interlocutory State-Court Decisions: “The
Twilight Zone of Finality”, 19 STAN. L. REV. 907, 936–39 (1967) (discussing the policy
advantages of the final-judgment rule). See also Timothy P. Glynn, Discontent and Indiscretion:
Discretionary Review of Interlocutory Orders, 77 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 175, 180 (2001).
32
See Robert A. Ragazzo, Transfer and Choice of Federal Law: The Appellate Model, 93
MICH. L. REV. 703, 758–59 n.320 (1995) (“[T]he final judgment rule values the time of appellate
courts more than the time of trial courts. The final judgment rule requires the trial court to hold
trials that may turn out after an appeal to have been unnecessary or to retry cases that the appellate
court later finds were tainted with significant error. A contrary rule is neither unthinkable nor
obviously inefficient.”).
33
See Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 83 (1981).
34
See E. End Taxi Servs., Inc. v. V.I. Taxi Ass’n, 411 F. App’x 495, 498–99 (3d Cir. 2011)
(quoting Gov’t of V.I. v. Hodge, 359 F.3d 312, 318–19 (3d Cir. 2004)) (stating that the court
cannot review an interlocutory order “absent specific statutory authorization”).
35
See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006).
36
See id; see also E. End Taxi Servs., Inc., 411 F. App’x at 498–99 (quoting Hodge, 359 F.3d
at 318–19) (stating that the court cannot review an interlocutory order “absent specific statutory
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
742
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
As noted above, Congress resolved the systemic-efficiency issues in
favor of a single appeal after final judgment, but it exempted certain rulings
because delay in those circumstances imposed hardships that tipped the
efficiency balance in favor of immediate review.37 Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(a), parties may appeal immediately orders granting injunctions,38
orders appointing receivers,39 and certain admiralty orders.40 Congress has
elsewhere authorized interlocutory challenges for certain other types of
rulings.41
Congress did not, however, authorize an automatic interlocutory appeal
for orders denying remand,42 and the absence of such authorization was not
the result of congressional inattention. Despite devoting an entire chapter
of the Judicial Code to nearly every aspect of removal and remand,43
Congress did not authorize an interlocutory challenge to remand orders
generally.44 Congress expressly removed the right to challenge most orders
granting remand,45 and Congress expressly allowed immediate challenges
to certain remand rulings in certain class actions.46 Therefore, orders
denying remand fall outside both the definition of a final judgment and the
congressional list of rulings that should be categorically excepted from it.47
authorization”).
37
See E. End Taxi Servs., Inc., 411 F. App’x at 498–99 (quoting Hodge, 359 F.3d at 318–19)
(stating that the court cannot review an interlocutory order “absent specific statutory
authorization”); see also Recent Cases, Unexplained Dismissal Without Prejudice of Intervenor’s
Counterclaims Seeking Injunctive Relief Is Appealable—Stewart-Warner Corp. v. Westinghouse
Elec. Corp. (2d Cir. 1963), 77 HARV. L. REV. 1535, 1538 (1964) (discussing § 1292(a) as a
“device[] for relieving the substantial hardship that often” occurs under the final-judgment rule).
38
28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2006).
39
Id. § 1292(a)(2).
40
Id. § 1292(a)(3).
41
E.g., id. § 1453(c) (authorizing interlocutory review of a CAFA removal order).
42
Subject-matter jurisdiction can, however, be considered ancillary to an otherwise proper
interlocutory appeal, such as an appeal from an injunction ruling. Humphrey v. Sequentia, Inc.,
58 F.3d 1238, 1241 (8th Cir. 1995); O’Halloran v. Univ. of Wash., 856 F.2d 1375, 1378 (9th Cir.
1988); James v. Bellotti, 733 F.2d 989, 992 (1st Cir. 1984).
43
28 U.S.C. §§ 1441–53.
44
Id.
45
Id. § 1447(d).
46
Id. § 1453(c)(1).
47
Tucker v. Cox Tex. Newspapers, L.P., 137 F. App’x 650, 651 (5th Cir. 2005); Woodard v.
STP Corp., 170 F.3d 1043, 1044 (11th Cir. 1999); Walker v. Nationsbank, No. 97-1158, 1997
WL 158089, at *1 (4th Cir. April 4, 1997); Melancon v. Texaco, Inc., 659 F.2d 551, 552–53 (5th
Cir. Unit A Oct. 1981).
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
743
C. The Order Denying a Remand Motion May Be Immediately
Appealed Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), but Only with District
Court Approval.
In 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) Congress provided a specific, interlocutory
appellate remedy for rulings that satisfy neither the final-judgment rule nor
any of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)’s categorical exceptions.48 Recognizing that
some cases would warrant early review but could not be easily categorized
ahead of time, Congress created a flexible option for appellate review of
controlling, debatable legal issues whose early resolution would advance
the litigation in a way that outweighed the costs of an early appeal.49
Congress also, however, placed an important “dual-certification” limitation
in the statute.50 That is, interlocutory review pursuant to § 1292(b) is only
available when the district court is “of the opinion” that the statutory
48
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) states:
When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable
under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling
question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and
that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of
Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action may thereupon, in
its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it
within ten days after the entry of the order: Provided, however, That application for an
appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge
or the Court of Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order.
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); Cardona v. Gen. Motors Corp., 939 F. Supp. 351, 353 (D.N.J. 1996) (listing
the elements of § 1292(b) review as: “(1) a controlling question of law, (2) about which there is
substantial ground for difference of opinion, the immediate resolution of which by the appeals
court will (3) materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”).
49
As the Second Circuit noted:
Section 1292(b) was the result of dissatisfaction with the prolongation of litigation and
with harm to litigants uncorrectable on appeal from a final judgment, sometimes
resulting from strict application of the federal final judgment rule. It was thus designed
to cure these difficulties by permitting speedy determination of debatable legal issues,
the resolution of which might greatly advance the ultimate determination of the
controversy, without requiring the parties first to participate in a trial.
Bersch v. Drexel Firestone, Inc., 519 F.2d 974, 995 (2d Cir. 1975), abrogated on other grounds by
Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010).
50
See, e.g., Michael E. Solimine, Revitalizing Interlocutory Appeals in the Federal Courts, 58
GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1165, 1172 (1990) (discussing the legislative compromise behind § 1292(b)
that resulted in the “dual certification” requirement).
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
744
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
requirements are satisfied and certifies the same to the appellate court.51
Then, and only then, the appellate court can review the statutory
requirements and exercise its discretion to accept the appeal.52 Thus, even
if an appellate court might independently conclude that the prerequisites of
§ 1292(b) are present, appellate review is not available unless the district
court has also arrived at this same conclusion and “certified” the issue for
potential appeal under § 1292(b).53 Because an appeal under § 1292(b) thus
requires both the district court and the appellate court to independently
conclude that the prerequisites of the statute are satisfied, commentators
have dubbed this aspect of § 1292(b) to be a “dual-certification”
requirement.54
Section 1292(b) review is a viable option for interlocutory review of
forum-selection rulings. District courts have certified orders denying both
jurisdiction-based remand motions55 and remand motions based on
51
See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
Id.
53
Aucoin v. Matador Servs., Inc., 749 F.2d 1180, 1181 (5th Cir. 1985).
54
See, e.g., Solimine, supra note 50, at 1172 (discussing the legislative compromise behind
§ 1292(b) that resulted in the “dual certification” requirement).
55
E.g., Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142, 146–47 (2007); Murphy Bros. v.
Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 349 (1999); Am. Nat’l Red Cross v. S.G., 505 U.S.
247, 249 (1992); Knudson v. Sys. Painters, Inc., 634 F.3d 968, 971–72 (8th Cir. 2011); Dial v.
Healthspring of Ala., Inc., 541 F.3d 1044, 1047 (11th Cir. 2008); Bennett v. Sw. Airlines Co.,
484 F.3d 907, 908 (7th Cir. 2007); Rico v. Flores, 481 F.3d 234, 238 (5th Cir. 2007); Louisiana
v. Union Oil Co., 458 F.3d 364, 366 (5th Cir. 2006); Mattel, Inc. v. Bryant, 446 F.3d 1011, 1013
(9th Cir. 2006); Melder v. Allstate Corp., 404 F.3d 328, 330 (5th Cir. 2005); Rainwater v. Lamar
Life Ins. Co., 391 F.3d 636, 637 (5th Cir. 2004); Bolen v. Miss. Admin. Servs., Inc., 73 F. App’x
764, 764 (5th Cir. 2003); Sonoco Prods. Co. v. Physicians Health Plan, Inc., 338 F.3d 366, 368
(4th Cir. 2003); Grant v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 309 F.3d 864, 868 (5th Cir. 2002); Rosmer
v. Pfizer Inc., 263 F.3d 110, 113 (4th Cir. 2001); Badon v. RJR Nabisco Inc., 224 F.3d 382, 388
(5th Cir. 2000); McClelland v. Gronwaldt, 155 F.3d 507, 511 (5th Cir. 1998); Ard v. Transcon.
Gas Pipe Line Corp., 138 F.3d 596, 600 (5th Cir. 1998); Warren v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of
S.C., No. 97-1374, 1997 WL 701413, at *1 (4th Cir. Nov. 12, 1997); Carpenter v. Wichita Falls
Indep. Sch. Dist., 44 F.3d 362, 365 (5th Cir. 1995); Linton v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.,
964 F.2d 1480, 1483 (5th Cir. 1992); Amoco Prod. Co. v. Sea Robin Pipeline Co., 844 F.2d 1202,
1204 (5th Cir. 1988); Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1371 (9th Cir. 1987);
Elston Inv., Ltd. v. David Altman Leasing Corp., 731 F.2d 436, 437 (7th Cir. 1984); Aucoin, 749
F.2d at 1181; Hartwell Corp. v. Boeing Co., 678 F.2d 842, 842 (9th Cir. 1982); Guinasso v. Pac.
First Fed. Savings & Loan Ass’n, 656 F.2d 1364, 1365 (9th Cir. 1981); Nuclear Eng’g Co. v.
Scott, 660 F.2d 241, 245 (7th Cir. 1981); Gamble v. Cent. of Ga. Ry. Co., 486 F.2d 781, 782 (5th
Cir. 1973); Climax Chem. Co. v. C.F. Braun & Co., 370 F.2d 616, 617 (10th Cir. 1966); Dodd v.
Fawcett Publ’ns, Inc., 329 F.2d 82, 83 (10th Cir. 1964); Parks v. N.Y. Times Co., 308 F.2d 474,
52
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
745
nonjurisdictional grounds,56 as well as orders denying jurisdiction-based
motions to dismiss.57 Of course, the dual-certification requirement makes
interlocutory review of a remand denial more difficult to obtain.58 District
judges may refuse to certify because, for example, they think they are
clearly right59 or because immediate resolution will not advance efficiency
enough to justify the cost.60 The appellate judges may also decline for
474 (5th Cir. 1962).
56
E.g., Knudson, 634 F.3d at 971–72; Allen v. Christenberry, 327 F.3d 1290, 1291 (11th Cir.
2003); Badon, 224 F.3d at 387; Somlyo v. J. Lu-Rob Enters., Inc., 932 F.2d 1043, 1045 (2d Cir.
1991); Brown v. Demco, Inc., 792 F.2d 478, 480 (5th Cir. 1986).
57
E.g., Sandoz v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 553 F.3d 913, 914–15 (5th Cir. 2008); Puryear v.
Cnty. of Roanoke, 214 F.3d 514, 517 (4th Cir. 2000); Fed. Express Corp. v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
151 F.3d 536, 537–38 (6th Cir. 1998); Palumbo v. Waste Techs. Indus., 989 F.2d 156, 158–59
(4th Cir. 1993); Smith v. Reagan, 844 F.2d 195, 197–98 (4th Cir. 1988); Madsen v. U.S. ex rel.
U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 841 F.2d 1011, 1012 (10th Cir. 1987); U.S. ex rel. Wis. Dep’t of
Health & Human Servs. v. Dean, 729 F.2d 1100, 1103 (7th Cir. 1984); Int’l Ass’n. of Machinists
& Aerospace Workers v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 673 F.2d 700, 703 (3d Cir. 1982); Stern v. U.S.
Gypsum, Inc., 547 F.2d 1329, 1331 (7th Cir. 1977); Exch. Nat’l Bank v. Touche Ross & Co., 544
F.2d 1126, 1130 (2d Cir. 1976); Hernandez v. Travelers Ins. Co., 489 F.2d 721, 722 (5th Cir.
1974); Smith v. Canadian Pac. Airways, Ltd., 452 F.2d 798, 799 (2d Cir. 1971); Gillette Co. v.
“42” Prods. Ltd., 435 F.2d 1114, 1114 (9th Cir. 1970).
58
This is the result that Congress intended when it crafted the dual-certification requirement.
See, e.g., Solimine, supra note 50, at 1172 (explaining that the dual-certification requirement was
a compromise “between those who did not want any expansion of interlocutory appeals[] and
those who favored” the more expansive version of § 1292(b) that had been initially proposed).
59
See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (requiring that there be a “substantial ground for difference of
opinion . . .”); see also, Martineau, supra note 15 at 733 (“A court of appeals . . . has absolute
discretion to refuse to hear the appeal [under § 1292(b)].”).
60
See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (2006) (requiring that “an immediate appeal from the order may
materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation . . . .”). Courts have even held that a
district court retains complete discretion to deny certification even when the other requirements of
the statute are met. See, e.g., Bachowski v. Usery, 545 F.2d 363, 368 (3d Cir. 1976)
(“[P]ermission to appeal [under § 1292(b)] is wholly within the discretion of the courts, even if the
criteria are present.”); Nat’l Asbestos Workers Med. Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 71 F. Supp. 2d
139, 162 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (“The legislative history, congressional design and case law indicate
that district court judges retain unfettered discretion to deny certification of an order for
interlocutory appeal even where the three legislative criteria of section 1292(b) appear to be
met.”). Commentators, however, appear to split on this question. Compare Martin H. Redish,
The Pragmatic Approach to Appealability in the Federal Courts, 75 COLUM. L. REV. 89, 109
(1975) (“The district courts enjoy generally absolute discretion to deny a section 1292(b)
certificate, and the procedures for obtaining appellate court certification once the district court
certificate has been issued are comparatively cursory.”) (footnote omitted), with Cassandra Burke
Robertson, Appellate Review of Discovery Orders in Federal Court: A Suggested Approach for
Handling Privilege Claims, 81 WASH. L. REV. 733, 780 (2006) (“[T]he text of [§ 1292(b)] simply
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
746
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
various reasons.61 But dual certification is precisely the condition that
Congress imposed so that 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) would not completely
undermine the final-judgment rule.
We return to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) in the next Part discussing the
availability of mandamus, as we turn to the question of whether a litigant
has an “adequate remedy by appeal.”62 For now, we summarize where we
have been: a denied remand order is not a final judgment subject to
immediate appeal, and it satisfies none of the categorical exceptions
authorizing interlocutory appeal.63 Therefore, the party suffering a denied
remand motion generally has two appellate remedies: appeal after a final
judgment or seek interlocutory certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
II.
EXCEPT IN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, MANDAMUS WILL
NOT LIE TO CORRECT AN ORDER DENYING A REMAND MOTION
BECAUSE REMAND MOVANTS HAVE AN ADEQUATE REMEDY BY
APPEAL.
The All Writs Act64 provides the statutory basis for the issuance of a
writ of mandamus by an appellate court to a lower court.65 The Supreme
Court has consistently interpreted this statute such that the “remedy of
mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations”66
or “exceptional circumstances.”67
The Court has long ago68—and
recently69—and in between70—demanded that three conditions must be
does not give the district court unlimited discretion [to deny certification when the statutory
factors are present].”). See also Robertson, supra at 777–87 (considering whether mandamus can
be used to correct district court errors in refusing to certify an appeal under § 1292(b)).
61
See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (explaining that a court of appeals may decline § 1292(b) review
“in its discretion”).
62
See infra Part II.
63
See supra Part I.B.
64
28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2006).
65
See 16 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 3932 (2d. ed.
1992) (explaining how the All Writs Act has been interpreted to allow appellate review of
interlocutory decisions).
66
Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976).
67
Id.
68
Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 260 (1947). See also infra note 72 and accompanying text.
69
See, e.g., Hollingsworth v. Perry, 130 S. Ct. 705, 710 (2010).
70
See, e.g., Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 US 367, 380–81 (2004); Kerr, 426 U.S. at
403.
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
747
satisfied before mandamus may issue. The first, and our primary focus, is
that “‘the party seeking issuance of the writ [must] have no other adequate
means to attain the relief he desires[]’—a condition designed to ensure that
the writ will not be used as a substitute for the regular appeals process.”71
Some courts of appeals have developed purportedly flexible multi-factor
tests,72 but those formulations, whatever they purport to offer in terms of
flexibility, cannot forgive what the Court and the writ have always
required—that a mandamus petitioner have “no adequate remedy by
appeal.”73
Thus, the starting presumption in determining whether mandamus is
generally available to review any category of case must be “no.” Recently,
however, the Fifth Circuit has decided otherwise with regard to remand
denials.74 This conclusion by the Fifth Circuit in favor of mandamus has
proceeded along two separate modes of analysis involving two different
types of cases.75 The first type of case involves a remand motion that is
based on the district court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The second
type of case involves a remand motion that is based on nonjurisdictional
grounds.76
71
Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380–81 (internal citation omitted).
E.g., In re Lott, 424 F.3d 446, 449 (6th Cir. 2005) (adopting Bauman’s five-factor test);
Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650, 654–55 (9th Cir. 1977) (adopting five “guidelines” for
reviewing a mandamus petition: whether (1) the party seeking the writ has no other means, such
as a direct appeal, of attaining the desired relief, (2) the petitioner will be damaged in a way not
correctable on appeal, (3) the district court’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law, (4) the
order is an oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules, and (5) the
order raises new and important problems, or issues of law of first impression.).
73
E.g., In re Huguley Mfg. Co., 184 U.S. 297, 301 (1902) (“[T]he writ of mandamus cannot
be used to perform the office of an appeal or writ of error, and is only granted, as a general rule,
where there is no other adequate remedy.”); In re Blake, 175 U.S. 114, 117 (1899) (“The writ of
mandamus cannot be issued to compel a judicial tribunal to decide a matter within its discretion in
a particular way, or to review its judicial action had in the exercise of legitimate jurisdiction, nor
be used to perform the office of an appeal or writ of error. And it only lies, as a general rule,
where there is no other adequate remedy.”); Ex parte Hoard, 105 U.S. 578, 580 (1881) (denying
mandamus review where the case could be reviewed after a final judgment, stating that “[i]t is an
elementary principle that a mandamus cannot be used to perform the office of an appeal or a writ
of error”); Ex parte Cutting, 94 U.S. 14, 20 (1876) (“The office of a mandamus is to compel the
performance of a plain and positive duty. It is issued upon the application of one who has a clear
right to demand such a performance, and who has no other adequate remedy.”).
74
See infra Part II.A. and Part II.B.
75
See infra Part II.A.
76
See infra Part II.B.
72
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
748
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
In the first type of case, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the mandamus
petitioner does not have an adequate remedy on appeal because of the
expense and delay associated with waiting to correct this alleged
jurisdictional defect until after a final judgment.77 In the second type of
case, the Fifth Circuit reasoned that a procedural defect in removal might be
considered harmless error in an appeal after a final judgment and that
mandamus is therefore necessary to correct this mistake immediately.78
Before proceeding to evaluate these two categories, an initial
observation reveals an internal inconsistency. For alleged jurisdictional
defects, the conclusion in favor of mandamus is premised on the notion that
a jurisdictional defect is so harmful that it must be corrected immediately.79
That is, because a jurisdictional defect will automatically constitute
reversible error, immediate review must be available.80 But for remand
motions based upon alleged procedural defects in the removal process, the
conclusion in favor of mandamus is based on the notion that a procedural
defect may prove harmless after appeal and therefore appeal is an
inadequate remedy.81 This “heads-I-win, tails-you-lose” rationale makes
mandamus available to review any denial of a remand motion. In reality,
however, neither of these modes of analysis is supportable. The first—used
in cases involving remand motions alleging lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction—is foreclosed by long-standing Supreme Court precedent.82
The second—used in cases involving remand motions alleging procedural
defects in the removal process—is based on an analytical process that warps
the traditional understanding of the relationship between mandamus and
appeals after final judgment.83
77
In re Crystal Power Co., 641 F.3d 78, 82 (5th Cir.), opinion withdrawn and superseded by
641 F.3d 82 (5th Cir. 2011).
78
In re Beazley Ins. Co., No. 09-20005, 2009 WL 7361370, at *3 (5th Cir. May 4, 2009) (per
curiam).
79
See infra Part II.A.
80
See infra Part II.A.
81
See infra Part II.B.
82
See infra note 108 and accompanying text.
83
See infra Part II.B.
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
749
A. A Movant Complaining of the Denial of a Jurisdiction-Based
Remand Motion Has an Adequate Remedy by Appeal.
Often, remand motions are based on the plaintiff’s argument that the
district court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the controversy.
For example, a plaintiff might argue that federal-question jurisdiction is
absent,84 that a particular defendant was not fraudulently joined (and
therefore diversity jurisdiction is absent),85 or that the amount in
controversy does not exceed the threshold.86 To be sure, difficult questions
may arise regarding whether a particular impediment to the court
proceeding is truly a jurisdictional impediment.87 But we leave that linedrawing to others and proceed using the phrasal adjective “jurisdictionbased” to refer to remand motions based upon an argument that, if accepted,
would be properly characterized as defeating the court’s subject-matter
jurisdiction. Absent extraordinary circumstances, appellate remedies are
adequate (and therefore mandamus is unavailable) because: (1) a successful
appeal after final judgment will require the appellate court to vacate the
adverse district-court decision;88 and (2) the expenditure of time and
resources of going to trial does not make post-judgment appeal an
inadequate remedy.89 Further, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and its place in the
appellate-jurisdiction structure counsel against court-initiated expansion of
the mandamus remedy in this context.90
1. Appeal After Final Judgment Is an Adequate Remedy Because
an Appellate Court Can Vacate the Lower-Court Decision.
Rulings on jurisdiction-based remand motions are reviewable on appeal
after final judgment without regard to any harmless-error analysis. If the
84
E.g., Bennett v. Sw. Airlines Co., 484 F.3d 907, 908 (7th Cir. 2007).
E.g., Rico v. Flores, 481 F.3d 234, 237–38 (5th Cir. 2007); Dodd v. Fawcett Publ’ns, Inc.,
329 F.2d 82, 83 (10th Cir. 1964).
86
E.g., Davis v. Carl Cannon Chevrolet-Olds, Inc., 182 F.3d 792 (11th Cir. 1999); Ard v.
Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Corp., 138 F.3d 596 (5th Cir. 1998).
87
To be sure, it is not always clear whether a particular impediment to a court hearing a case
is a restriction on the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S.
205, 208–10 (2007) (holding that the time to file a notice of appeal is jurisdictional). See
generally Scott Dodson, In Search of Removal Jurisdiction, 102 NW. U. L. REV. 55 (2008);
Howard M. Wasserman, Jurisdiction and Merits, 80 WASH. L. REV. 643 (2005).
88
See infra Part II.A.1.
89
See infra Part II.A.2.
90
See infra Part II.A.3.
85
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
750
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
appellate court concludes that the district court had no subject-matter
jurisdiction when judgment was rendered, the court of appeals will vacate
the underlying judgment and remand the case to state court.91 Typically,
when a civil litigant presents an argument to an appellate court, the litigant
must show not only a preserved error but also that the error has affected the
litigant’s substantial rights.92 Generally speaking, this means a party that
loses a final judgment must show that the error likely had some impact on
the result.93 But the harm analysis plays no role when a district court
improperly exercises subject-matter jurisdiction. We do not see, for
example, the Supreme Court in the famous Mottley94 or Mansfield95 cases
opining as to whether the state court would have ruled differently had the
federal court not improperly exercised jurisdiction.
So, a plaintiff who loses a jurisdiction-based remand motion will
unquestionably be able to challenge the denial after a final judgment. And
if the plaintiff prevails, the appellate court will order the case remanded
back to state court and vacate any judgment that was rendered without
jurisdiction.
2. The Time and Expense of Trial Does Not Make Post-Judgment
Appeal an Inadequate Remedy.
Although we have seen that a plaintiff losing a jurisdiction-based
remand motion will prevail after final judgment if the motion is erroneously
denied,96 the plaintiff must endure the time and expense of trial. The
question is whether mandamus relief is available because having to wait
91
E.g., Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., 541 US 567, 586–87 (2004). Indeed, so long as
a defect in subject-matter jurisdiction is identified before direct appellate proceedings have ended,
the appellate court must vacate the underlying proceedings without regard to waiver, harm,
forfeiture, and estoppel. Ins. Corp. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702
(1982). For completeness, we note here the quirky line of “cure” cases in which dismissal of a
party who destroyed diversity jurisdiction can cure a relevant jurisdictional defect in some
circumstances. Grupo Dataflux, 541 U.S. at 573–75 (discussing Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519
U.S. 61 (1996) and Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989)).
92
28 U.S.C. § 2111 (2006); FED. R. CIV. P. 61.
93
See McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 US 548, 556 (1984); In re Nat’l
Presto Indus., Inc., 347 F.3d 662, 663 (7th Cir. 2003); Howard v. Gonzales, 658 F.2d 352, 357
(5th Cir. Unit A Oct. 1981); Flanigan v. Burlington N., Inc., 632 F.2d 880, 889 (8th Cir. 1980).
94
Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 US 149, 154 (1908).
95
Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Mich. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 388–89 (1884).
96
See supra Part II.A.1.
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
751
until after a trial renders appeal inadequate. A recent progression of cases
in the Fifth Circuit provides a good case study.
In 2007, in a seemingly innocuous (but published) per curiam opinion,
In re Hot-Hed, Inc.,97 the Fifth Circuit declared that when the writ of
mandamus is sought to review the denial of a remand motion based on a
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, “the court should issue the writ almost as
a matter of course.”98 Hot-Hed contained no discussion of whether the
petitioner had an adequate remedy by appeal.99 Five years later, a panel in
In re Crystal Power also granted a mandamus petition challenging a
jurisdiction-based remand denial.100 The Crystal Power panel attempted to
justify the writ’s issuance under the no-adequate-remedy prong:
Appeal is not an adequate remedy because, although it may
be possible for the parties to try this case to verdict in
federal court before addressing the lack of federal
jurisdiction on appeal, this would demand time and
resources to an end that cannot be upheld. As we have said
in the past under similar circumstances, “[w]e need not
enforce such an absurd result and require petitioner[ ] to go
to trial in federal court and await an appellate remedy.”101
After the panel issued Hot-Hed, we joined a small group of law
professors102 in asking the Fifth Circuit to rehear the case en banc to reject
the panel’s decision. We argued, as we do today, that mandamus is
unavailable under Supreme Court precedent and that sound policy supports
that precedent.103
Starting with Hot-Hed, the Fifth Circuit had flipped the relevant rule.
Hot-Hed declared that mandamus should be available “as a matter of
97
477 F.3d 320, 322 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
Id. at 323.
99
Id.
100
In re Crystal Power Co., 641 F.3d 78, 82 (5th Cir.), opinion withdrawn and superseded by
641 F.3d 82 (5th Cir. 2011).
101
Id. (quoting In re Dutile, 935 F.2d 61, 64 (5th Cir. 1991).
102
Deborah Challener (Associate Professor of Law, Mississippi College School of Law),
Jeremy Counseller (Professor of Law, Baylor Law School), Luke Meier (Associate Professor of
Law, Baylor Law School), W. Charles “Rocky” Rhodes (Godwin Fonquillo PC Research
Professor and Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law), Rory Ryan (Professor of Law,
Baylor Law School), and Evelyn Wilson (Horatio C. Thompson Endowed Professor of Law,
Southern University Law Center).
103
In re Crystal Power, 641 F.3d at 85–86.
98
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
752
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
course” to review remand denials based on a lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.104 But the Supreme Court long ago set, and has not since
disturbed, the rule that “the writ of mandamus may not be used to correct
alleged error in a refusal to remand where, after final judgment, the order
may be reviewed upon a writ of error on appeal.”105 A few years later, the
Court again confronted an attempt to use mandamus to correct a “clear”
jurisdictional error committed before final judgment.106 And again, the
Court confirmed that the clarity of error does not make an appeal an
inadequate remedy.107 Accepting the argument that even clear jurisdictional
errors in remand motions must await final judgment, the Court stated: “It is
not disputable that the proposition thus relied upon is well founded and
hence absolutely debars us from reviewing by mandamus the action of the
court below complained of, whatever may be our conviction as to its clear
error.”108
And given that the Court has rejected the availability of mandamus to
review remand orders, it is unsurprising that it has also rejected the
reasoning that was first proposed by the Crystal Power panel. The Crystal
Power panel had reasoned that appeal is an inadequate remedy to review a
jurisdiction-based remand motion because awaiting final judgment “would
demand time and resources to an end that cannot be upheld” and because
“we need not enforce such an absurd result and require petitioner to go to
trial in federal court and await an appellate remedy.”109 But it is
104
In re Hot-Hed, Inc., 477 F.3d 320, 323 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
Ex parte Roe, 234 U.S. 70, 73–74 (1914); see In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 216 (3d Cir.
2006) (“The United States Supreme Court has long rejected the general availability of mandamus
‘as a means of reviewing the action of the district court in denying a motion to remand a cause to
the state court from which it had been removed.’”) (quoting Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319
U.S. 21, 30–31); see also Orange Cnty. Water Dist. v. Unocal Corp., 584 F.3d 43, 48 (2d Cir.
2009).
106
Ex parte Park Square Auto. Station, 244 U.S. 412, 414 (1917).
107
Id.
108
Id. In emphatically concluding that the matter had been settled, the Park Square decision
relies primarily upon Ex parte Roe, 234 U.S. 70 (1914) and Ex parte Harding, 219 U.S. 363
(1911). Ex parte Harding is an important decision for one doing historical research because it
addressed some previously inconsistent cases regarding the availability of mandamus. 219 U.S.
363. The Court “disapprove[d] and qualifie[d]” earlier civil cases suggesting that mandamus
could correct a refusal to remand. Id. at 379. The Court noted that these earlier civil cases had
misapplied a previous decision under which mandamus was available to review the refusal to
remand a criminal prosecution. Id. “[U]nder the law as it then stood, no power would otherwise
have existed to correct the wrongful assumption of jurisdiction by the circuit court.” Id. at 373.
109
In re Crystal Power Co., 641 F.3d 78, 82 (5th Cir.), opinion withdrawn and superseded by
105
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
753
fundamental mandamus law that the time and expense of proceeding to
final judgment does not render an appeal an inadequate remedy, lest most
significant interlocutory rulings would be subject to immediate review via
mandamus.110 Again, the Court has spoken with unmistakable clarity:
“[T]rial may be of several months’ duration and may be correspondingly
costly and inconvenient. But that inconvenience is one which we must take
it Congress contemplated in finding that only final judgments should be
reviewable.”111
The Crystal Power panel correctly withdrew its opinion and denied
mandamus. As the Supreme Court case law cited above demonstrates,
mandamus is generally not available to review a jurisdiction-based remand
order.112 Such an order is reviewable on appeal after final judgment and by
discretionary interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b), and the time, expense,
and difficulty associated with these appellate remedies does not render them
641 F.3d 82 (5th Cir. 2011).
110
N.J., Dep’t of Treasury, Div. of Inv. v. Fuld, 604 F.3d 816, 822–23 (3d Cir. 2010); In re
Nat’l Presto Indust., Inc., 347 F.3d 662, 663 (7th Cir. 2003).
111
Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 30 (1943); see also In re Roche Molecular
Sys., Inc., 516 F.3d 1003, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 214 (3rd Cir. 2006)
(“Such rulings may well increase the cost of litigation, cause inconvenience, or result in
unanticipated delay in prosecuting the case. But these added burdens . . . typically do not suffice
to warrant the extraordinary step of mandamus intervention.”).
112
Although this article focuses on review of denied remand orders, a similar analysis should
apply to denials of jurisdiction-based motions to dismiss cases filed in federal court. Such denials
are obviously not final and find no help from the 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) exceptions. Catlin v. United
States confirms this general rule that the denial of a motion to dismiss for want of subject-matter
jurisdiction is generally not subject to interlocutory review. 324 U.S. 229, 235–36 (1945). And,
the rationale of the remand-denial cases applies equally here because the denial is correctable after
final judgment and the time and expense of enduring trial cannot render an appeal an inadequate
remedy. Nonetheless, courts occasionally depart from proper mandamus standards and issue the
writ to correct a denied motion to dismiss. E.g., In re Gillis, 836 F.2d 1001, 1012 (6th Cir. 1988)
(listing adequate-remedy-by-appeal as one of many flexible factors, changing the test during
application, and then ultimately (and bafflingly) concluding its harm analysis by stating that
mandamus is the only remedy that will “avert the necessity of trial on the merits.”); Bell v.
Sellevold, 713 F.2d 1396, 1403 (8th Cir. 1983) (opining anew about the no-adequate-remedy
prong and contradicting the rationale from the remand cases); BancOhio Corp. v. Fox, 516 F.2d
29, 33 (6th Cir. 1975) (focusing on the error being really wrong and not explaining why postjudgment appeal was inadequate); see also United States v. Boe, 543 F.2d 151, 161 (C.C.P.A.
1976) (relying on the approach rejected by Ex Parte Harding, 219 U.S. 363 (1911), and ultimately
finding exceptional circumstances because the district court was wrong in denying the motion to
dismiss).
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
754
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
inadequate.113 The next section explains that this result is not only
compelled by precedent but also reflects the correct respect for the appellate
remedies Congress has provided.
3. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Its Place in the Appellate-Jurisdiction
Structure Counsel Against Court-Initiated Expansion of the
Mandamus Remedy in This Context.
Congress has already decided when the time and expense of awaiting
trial justifies immediate appeal. Usually it doesn’t; hence the finaljudgment rule. For some categories of decisions it does; hence the
113
Modern cases usually recognize this general rule. In re Crystal Power Co., 641 F.3d 82,
84 (5th Cir. 2011);
In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d at 214;
In re Diet Drugs
(Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Prods. Liab. Litig., 93 F. App’x 345, 348–49 (3d
Cir. 2004); Madden v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Cal., Nos. 99-71354 & 99-71525, 2000 WL
1171169, at *1–2 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2000); Direct Transit Lines, Inc. v. Starr, 219 F.2d 699 (6th
Cir. 1955). Of course, although the time and expense of waiting to appeal after a final judgment
does not, alone, justify mandamus review, extraordinary circumstances may exist that justify the
issuance of the writ. In several cases, the writ has issued because the courts found exceptional
circumstances beyond the mere time and expense of enduring trial in a tribunal that is without
subject-matter jurisdiction. Whether these cases correctly resolve what circumstances are
exceptional, they can at least be explained by the proper analysis. For example, courts have found
that the Saving-to-Suitors Clause in the Jones Act creates an “uncommon right” for plaintiffs to
choose a forum without interference by the defendant, and therefore mandamus should issue if the
district court fails to remand. In re Dutile, 935 F.2d 61, 63–64 (5th Cir. 1991); see also In re
Chimenti, 79 F.3d 534 537–40 (6th Cir. 1996). Three other modern cases provide examples of
where unusual circumstances at least arguably make post-judgment appeal inadequate. Orange
Cnty. Water Dist. v. Unocal Corp., 584 F.3d 43, 48 (2d Cir. 2009) (where similarly situated
parties in the litigation were treated differently, the court held that the unique nature of the case
counseled in favor of review); Three J Farms, Inc. v. Alton Box Bd. Co., 609 F.2d 112, 116 (4th
Cir. 1979) (finding compelling circumstances where the district court lacked jurisdiction to vacate
an original order of remand because “‘traditional use of the writ in aid of appellate jurisdiction
both at common law and in the federal courts has been to confine an inferior court to a lawful
exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction’”) (quoting Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21,
26 (1943); In re La Providencia Dev. Corp., 406 F.2d 251, 253 (1st Cir. 1969) (holding that
exceptional circumstances existed for three reasons: first, “the district court has misunderstood
the plain meaning of the statute. Secondly, although even substantial inconvenience to the parties
is normally insufficient, as any erroneous judgment may ultimately be corrected, the question
whether the sizable attachments in the present case should be released or continued involves
possibly irreparable immediate harm in case of an erroneous decision either way. Finally, while
comity is not controlling even on mandamus, it adds weight to the two prior special
circumstances; the local, and appropriate, court should be the one to decide any questions relating
to the attachments.”) (internal citations omitted).
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
755
§ 1292(a) exceptions. Remand denials satisfy none of those categories.
And if a litigant seeks to depart from this scheme on a case-specific basis,
that litigant has to satisfy § 1292(b) and follow the procedures set by
Congress, including obtaining district court permission for an immediate
appeal. Courts should not use mandamus to recalibrate the congressionally
approved balance between the micro and macro efficiencies set by the finaljudgment rule and § 1292.
The no-adequate-remedy-by-appeal requirement is a limitation designed
to prevent courts from using mandamus to circumvent Congress’s appellate
scheme.114 It is not authorization for courts to reweigh the policies
Congress considered and to determine whether the congressional solution is
an adequate one. As the Supreme Court has observed, the no-adequateremedy requirement must be viewed in light of
Congress’[s] determination since the Judiciary Act of 1789
that as a general rule “appellate review should be
postponed . . . until after final judgment has been rendered
by the trial court.” A judicial readiness to issue the writ of
mandamus in anything less than an extraordinary situation
would run the real risk of defeating the very policies sought
to be furthered by that judgment of Congress.115
In other words, appellate judges cannot use the inadequate-remedy
requirement of mandamus to second guess Congress’s allocation: “Where
the appeal statutes establish the conditions of appellate review an appellate
court cannot rightly exercise its discretion to issue a writ whose only effect
would be to avoid those conditions and thwart the Congressional policy
against piecemeal appeals.”116
To be sure, truly exceptional circumstances may exist where the harm of
denying immediate review transcends the time and expense of awaiting
114
See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004) (stating that “‘the
party seeking issuance of the writ [must] have no other adequate means to attain the relief he
desires[]’—a condition designed to ensure that the writ will not be used as a substitute for the
regular appeals process” (quoting Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976)
(internal citation omitted))); Jordon L. Kruse, Appealability of Class Certification Orders: The
“Mandamus Appeal” and a Proposal to Amend Rule 23, 91 NW. U. L. REV. 704, 733 (1997)
(explaining that mandamus should not “circumvent the clear and sound policies of the final
judgment rule”).
115
Kerr, 426 U.S. at 403 (quoting Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 96 (1967)).
116
Roche, 319 U.S. at 30–31.
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
756
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
final judgment.117 But when those circumstances do not exist, a mandamus
petitioner cannot circumvent Congress’s scheme by rearguing the finaljudgment rule and declaring Congress’s resolution inadequate.
In the context of jurisdiction-based remand denials,118 this anticircumvention rationale is also informed by the availability of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(b). In § 1292(b), Congress provided an interlocutory appellate
remedy designed to allow case-specific consideration of whether efficiency
concerns justify a departure from the final-judgment rule.119 Congress did
not write a generally applicable, as-of-right interlocutory appeal statute
(which would represent a repudiation of the final-judgment rule).120 Rather,
it limited this appellate remedy to certain types of rulings that would
advance efficiency and required certain procedures that would advance
efficiency.121 To obtain § 1292(b) relief, a petitioner must have suffered an
adverse ruling on a controlling question of law122 and the petitioner must
117
See supra note 111 and accompanying text.
This clause provides an important limitation in two ways. It limits this section to remand
denials, and then even more specifically to jurisdiction-based remand denials. The latter
limitation will be further explored in the next section, Part II.B. The first limitation recognizes the
complexity of the relationship between the § 1292(b) appellate remedy and the mandamus
requirement that petitioner have no adequate remedy by appeal, and we leave broader
consideration of that relationship to another article. We note that in attempting to reconcile
mandamus and § 1292(b), some courts have held that parties do not need to attempt an appeal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) before petitioning for mandamus. In re Chimenti, 79 F.3d 534, 538–39
(6th Cir. 1996). Some courts have suggested that a 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) attempt is required before
mandamus; others have described such an attempt as optional or recommended. Exec. Software
N. Am. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 24 F.3d 1545, 1549–50 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled
by Cal. Dep’t of Water Res. v. Powerex Corp., 533 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2008); Alexander v.
Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155, 163 n.8 (3d. Cir. 1993); In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 977
F.2d 764, 773 (3d Cir. 1992). Others have granted mandamus for the precise reason the district
court refused to certify. In re Dutile, 935 F.2d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1991) (“When the district court
declined to certify an appeal, petitioners applied to our court for a writ of mandamus.”). None of
these cases satisfactorily struggles with what we think warrants another future article. If
mandamus requires no adequate remedy by appeal, and if § 1292(b) provides a remedy by appeal,
then for which interlocutory rulings is this new appeal adequate? As explained above, it surely is
no answer to declare that the remedy is inadequate because a litigant fails to satisfy its
requirements (see infra note 135 about the amount in controversy on appeal), which is the actual
effect of the unsatisfying rulings that require a party to try the interlocutory appeal but then allow
mandamus if the appeal is not certified.
119
See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (2006).
120
See id.
121
See id.
122
Id.
118
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
757
convince both the trial court and the appellate court that efficiency would be
advanced by allowing the immediate appeal.123
So Congress has actually provided two appellate remedies for a plaintiff
whose jurisdiction-based remand motion has been wrongly denied. First,
the plaintiff can appeal after an adverse final judgment, and the court of
appeals will vacate the adverse judgment and order the case remanded back
to state court.124 The plaintiff will have to endure the time and expense of
trial, but those are the precise policies Congress balanced in the finaljudgment rule.125 And a plaintiff cannot circumvent that balance by arguing
that it was resolved inadequately.126 Or second, a plaintiff whose
jurisdiction-based remand motion has been wrongly denied can seek relief
under § 1292(b).127 Courts have frequently accommodated plaintiffs in
precisely this situation.128
To the extent courts of appeals and litigants believe that the requirement
of obtaining the district court’s permission before obtaining interlocutory
review renders the statute too stingy, the proper solution is to take up the
issue with Congress rather than to circumvent Congress’s decision through
mandamus.129 Suppose that a district judge denies a plaintiff’s jurisdictionbased motion to remand and then refuses to certify the appeal under
§ 1292(b) because the judge is not “of the opinion” that the question is a
controlling one of law or that immediate appeal will advance the ultimate
resolution. Can the plaintiff now obtain mandamus review by arguing that
the denial of certification leaves the plaintiff without an adequate remedy
by appeal? If the plaintiff’s only harm argument relies upon the time and
expense of having to endure trial (however this argument may be
disguised),130 then the answer is “absolutely not” for two reasons. First, in
123
Swint v. Chambers Cnty Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 46 (1995).
See Koehler v. Bank of Berm. Ltd., 101 F.3d 863, 865–66 (2d Cir. 1996).
125
In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 214 (3d Cir. 2006).
126
Id. at 214.
127
See Koehler, 101 F.3d at 864.
128
See Solimine, supra note 50, at 1172 (discussing the legislative compromise behind
§ 1292(b) that resulted in the “dual certification” requirement).
129
Cf. infra Part II.B. (explaining that mandamus is not appropriate vehicle to correct
perceived shortcomings stemming from the application of the harmless-error rule).
130
Again, we caution against reading through this introductory limitation. When the
inadequate-remedy argument is that a post-judgment appeal is inadequate because the plaintiff
must endure the time and expense of trial before obtaining reversal, then the argument targets the
very policies Congress balanced in the final-judgment rule and its exceptions. When a party
alleges some harm apart from time and expense, the anti-circumvention rationale does not apply
124
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
758
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
this context, even before § 1292(b) existed, an appeal after final judgment
provided an adequate remedy and could not be circumvented by the timeand-expense argument.131
Section 1292(b) provides an additional,
discretionary appellate remedy and certainly does not render appeal after
final judgment inadequate.
Second, Section 1292(b) is the appellate remedy Congress provided to
address the precise situation of when the time and expense of awaiting final
judgment justify departure from the usually applicable final-judgment
rule.132 Section 1292(b) sets certain requirements. One requirement is
district-court certification, and that certification depends upon the district
judge being “of the opinion” that the statutory requirements are met.133 The
dual-certification requirement was itself designed to advance efficiency and
represents an additional balance that should be protected against
circumvention.134 Just as the final-judgment rule does not become an
inadequate appellate remedy merely because a mandamus petitioner has no
final judgment, neither does the dual-certification-dependent interlocutory
remedy become inadequate because the petitioner cannot satisfy its
requirement of dual certification.135
directly, and it is there mandamus finds its exceptional-circumstances home.
131
See supra Part II.A.2.
132
See Redish, supra note 60 at n.202–05 (acknowledging that it is difficult to defend
judicially created exceptions to the final-judgment requirement that are based on the same policy
rationales underlying § 1292(b)). For another interesting preliminary exploration of a proposal,
see James E. Pfander and David R. Pekarek Krohn, 105 NW. L. REV. (forthcoming 2011) (“In
brief, we propose a rule that would empower the parties, by consent, to request the district court to
certify a question for interlocutory review. If the district court approved the joint request, the
party contesting the district court’s order could appeal the certified question without first having to
secure leave from the appellate court.”).
133
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (2006).
134
Cf. Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 46–48 (1995). As described by the
Wright and Miller treatise, “[t]he Swint Court concluded that § 1292(b) was deliberately drafted to
require district-court permission, and that it would be subverted by allowing the court of appeals
to exercise unilateral discretion to permit appeal by an additional appellant merely because a
different party had taken an available appeal.” 16 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3929.1 n.1 (2d ed. 1996); see also Note, Interlocutory Appeals in
the Federal Courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), 88 HARV. L. REV. 607, 632–33 (1975) (discussing
the policy objectives behind the dual-permission requirement). Because the statute obligates the
district judge to certify only if the judge is “of the opinion” that the criteria are met, the only room
for appellate review of the certification decision should be of a district judge who fails to certify
despite being of the opinion that the criteria are met.
135
Consider an additional example. Suppose that Congress has required, as it can require,
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
759
In Part III, we will place in a larger context our conclusions about
interlocutory review (via appeal or mandamus) of denied remand orders.
But before doing so, an intriguing distinction in types of remand motions
requires separate attention. What if the remand motion is based not on a
defect in the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, but rather is based
upon some nonjurisdictional defect that justifies remand?
B. Mandamus Is Not Appropriate to Review the Denial of a Remand
Motion Asserting Nonjurisdictional Grounds
The previous section demonstrated that mandamus is usually
unavailable to review the denial of a remand motion asserting jurisdictional
grounds. This section will consider whether mandamus is available to
review the denial of a remand motion asserting nonjurisdictional arguments.
Does this difference matter? Obviously, the intuitive answer to this
question is “no.” If a litigant cannot use mandamus to correct what she
believes is a jurisdictional defect in the district court proceedings, surely
mandamus is not available to a litigant whose denied remand is based on
nonjurisdictional grounds.
A recent Fifth Circuit decision, however, held otherwise by focusing on
an issue (harmless error) that arises only in the context of remand motions
alleging nonjurisdictional (as opposed to jurisdictional) defects.136 There is
a tempting appeal to the logic used by the Fifth Circuit in this case. The
logic is this: Because the nonjurisdictional arguments for remand might be
considered harmless error in an appeal after a final judgment, mandamus
review is warranted now.
that an appellate court’s jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the amount in controversy
exceeds $10,000. Further suppose that D suffers an adverse judgment of $200. Can D petition the
court of appeals for mandamus relief from the adverse judgment by arguing that it has no adequate
remedy by appeal? Of course not. In that case, too, the inadequacy argument is an impermissible
attempt to circumvent the policies Congress considered and the limitations it set on obtaining
relief. Similarly, Congress did not allow interlocutory appeals of controlling legal questions as of
right. Nor did it allow such appeals upon permission of an appellate court. Rather, it required
dual permission. And mandamus ought not be used to disrupt the dual-permission requirement
when the harm alleged (the time and expense of enduring trial) is the precise end targeted by the
appellate scheme of which dual permission is one requirement. See In re Cal. Pub., 79 F. App’x
478, 479 (2d Cir. 2003).
136
In re Beazley Ins. Co., No. 09-20005, 2009 WL 7361370, at *3 (5th Cir. May 4, 2009) (per
curiam).
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
760
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
Other circuit courts have employed this same logic to conclude that
mandamus is appropriate.137 But, the logic is faulty; despite its surface
appeal, it is based on a misunderstanding regarding the relationship between
(1) the mandamus requirement that a litigant have no other adequate means
to attain relief and (2) the harmless-error rule. Simply put, the conclusion
that a district court error is harmless does not mean that a litigant is without
adequate means to attain relief. Indeed, if harmless district court errors
were the proper basis of mandamus review, evidentiary rulings (which are
usually considered harmless in an appeal after a final judgment) could be
reviewed in a mandamus petition. This result, of course, is directly at odds
with the notion that mandamus is reserved for “extraordinary
circumstances.” Under the logic used by the Fifth Circuit, the more
ordinary and unimportant the ruling, the more appropriate it is for
mandamus.
Before proceeding further, it is first necessary to briefly explore the
nonjurisdictional arguments that can be legitimately raised in a remand
motion. As alluded to in the previous section, 28 U.S.C. § 1441 allows
removal of cases from state to federal court only when the federal court has
subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim.138 This prerequisite to removal
ensures that cases removed to federal court fall within the scope of the
judicial power defined by Article III of the Constitution139 and the
jurisdictional parameters imposed by congressional statute.140 Obviously,
then, a remand motion can raise any perceived defects in the district court’s
subject-matter jurisdiction.
But a defect in subject-matter jurisdiction is not the only ground on
which a remand motion can be based.141 Nonjurisdictional defects in the
removal from state court can also be legitimately raised in a remand
motion.142 This conclusion is underscored by 28 U.S.C § 1447(c), which
137
See, e.g., In re Nat’l Presto Indus., Inc., 347 F.3d 662, 663 (7th Cir. 2003).
See supra Part I.A.
139
U.S. CONST. art. III § 1.
140
See Walter W. Heiser, Forum Selection Clauses in Federal Courts: Limitations on
Enforcement after Stewart and Carnival Cruise, 45 FLA. L. REV. 553, 596–99 (1993) (discussing
the necessity of subject-matter jurisdiction in the context of removal and remand). See also Rory
Ryan, It’s Just Not Worth Searching for Welcome Mats with a Kaleidoscope and a Broken
Compass, 75 TENN. L. REV. 659, 685–86 (2008).
141
See Orange Cnty. Water Dist. v. Unocal Corp., 584 F.3d 43, 49–51 (2d Cir. 2009)
(discussing differences between jurisdiction-based remand orders and other remand orders).
142
See id.
138
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
761
requires that “[a] motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other
than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after
the filing of the notice of removal . . . .”143 Of the nonjurisdictional grounds
referred to in § 1447(c), most are of a procedural nature.144 For instance, a
defendant’s removal notice must be timely.145 If it is not, a remand motion
raising this issue should be granted.146 In addition to these procedural
defects, there are also discretionary principles that permit a district court to
remand a case to state court even though the district court has jurisdiction
over the case.147
The recent Fifth Circuit litigation in In re Beazley Insurance Co.148
involved a remand motion asserting a nonjurisdictional, procedural defect
in the removal from state to federal court.149 The litigation was originally
initiated in Texas state court against two defendants, one of which was
Beazley.150 After the suit was filed, the defendant other than Beazley
removed the litigation to a federal district court in Texas.151 When one
defendant seeks removal to federal court, it is usually necessary to get the
consent of other defendants in the litigation; this is referred to as the
unanimity rule.152 In the Beazley litigation, however, the removing
defendant did not get the consent of Beazley for the removal to federal
court.153 The removing defendant believed that Beazley was a nominal
defendant and that the unanimity rule thus did not require Beazley’s
consent.154
143
See 28 U.S.C § 1447(c) (2006).
See id.
145
Id.
146
Id.
147
See Deborah J. Challener, Distinguishing Certification from Abstention in Diversity Cases:
Postponement Versus Abdication of the Duty to Exercise Jurisdiction, 38 RUTGERS L.J. 847, 887–
90 (2007) (discussing abstention-based remands and abstention-based stays).
148
No. 09-20005, 2009 WL 7361370 (5th Cir. May 4, 2009) (per curiam).
149
Id. at *1.
150
Id.
151
Id.
152
E.g., Air Starter Components, Inc. v. Molina, 442 F. Supp. 2d 374, 377 (S.D. Tex. 2006)
(stating that “[u]nder the unanimity rule, all properly served defendants must timely join in or
consent to the removal”).
153
Beazley, 2009 WL 7361370, at * 1.
154
Id.
144
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
762
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
Beazley filed a motion to remand to state court on the grounds of the
unanimity rule.155 According to Beazley, it was not a nominal party and its
consent was required for a proper removal.156 The district court denied the
remand motion.157 Beazley then filed a petition for mandamus in the Fifth
Circuit asking the court to review the denial of Beazley’s nonjurisdictional
remand motion.158 As discussed in the previous section regarding
jurisdictional-based remand motions, mandamus is appropriate only if the
mandamus petitioner has “no other adequate means to attain relief.”159
According to Beazley, it had no other means to attain relief because an
appeal after a final judgment would require Beazley to comply with the
harmless-error rule.160
The harmless-error rule is a requirement for an appellant seeking
appellate court reversal of a final judgment entered by a lower court.161 The
harmless-error rule captures the common-sense notion that a legal error
made by a lower court should not require a reversal on appeal if the legal
error did not affect the ultimate outcome below.162 Thus, for instance, a
155
Id. at *2.
Id.
157
Id.
158
Id. at *3.
159
E.g., Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980) (“In order to insure that
the writ will issue only in extraordinary circumstances, this Court has required that a party seeking
issuance have no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires . . . .”).
160
Beazley, 2009 WL 7361370, at *3.
161
There are a variety of sources for the harmless-error rule. Rule 61 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure addresses the harmless-error rule, although the more natural location of the rule
might have been in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. FED. R. CIV. P. 61. In any event,
28 U.S.C. § 2111 also expresses the harmless-error principle, and this provision is applicable to all
federal courts, including federal appellate courts. See 11 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL.,
FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2882 (2d ed. 1995) (explaining the applicability of § 2111
to federal appellate courts). Even without a positive source for the rule, federal courts might
nevertheless apply the principle of the harmless-error rule. See id. (suggesting that the harmlesserror rule would be applied even without § 2111 and Rule 61). This is the case for many state
appellate courts. See, e.g., Palmer v. Hall, 680 So. 2d 307, 307–08 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996) (stating
that the court can affirm based on the harmless-error rule, but not providing a statutory basis for
doing so); Bean v. Superior Bowen Asphalt Co., 340 S.W.3d 275, 279 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011)
(stating that “[t]o reverse a trial court’s grant of a new trial due to instructional error, the appellant
must either show that the instructions were not, in fact, erroneous or that there was no potential for
prejudice from the erroneous instruction,” but not citing a state statute in support of the assertion).
162
See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 760 (1946) (“[The harmless-error principle]
comes down on its face to a very plain admonition: ‘Do not be technical, where technicality does
156
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
763
trial court’s decision to admit documentary evidence that has not been
authenticated might be an error,163 but on appeal, the harmless-error rule
allows an appellate court to determine that the judgment below need not be
reversed simply because of this technicality.164
The harmless-error rule and the final-judgment rule are interrelated.
Because litigants are usually forced to litigate in a lower court through a
final judgment before an appeal is permitted, the harmless-error rule is a
reflection of the fact that considerable time and effort has been required in
reaching this judgment and that errors in that process should be ignored if
they did not affect the ultimate outcome. Without the harmless-error rule,
any technical error by a lower court would require a reversal on appeal.
Under this scenario, then, the final-judgment rule would probably have to
be reconsidered; the efficiencies and benefits supporting the final-judgment
rule would be outweighed by the enormous costs associated with having to
redo lower court proceedings based on errors that did not affect the ultimate
decision.
In Beazley, the mandamus petitioner’s argument was that it had no
adequate remedy on appeal because the district court’s improper failure to
remand the case to state court might be considered a harmless error in an
appeal after a final judgment.165 In other words, Beazley contended that the
harmless-error rule might preclude appellate relief after a final judgment
because Beazley would be unable to show that a remand to state court
might have resulted in a different final judgment.
The Fifth Circuit agreed with Beazley’s argument.166 In fact, this
conclusion was arguably compelled by precedents that had considered the
exact same argument in the context of motions to transfer to another federal
court based on venue or forum non conveniens.
not really hurt the party whose rights in the trial and in its outcome the technicality affects.’”);
WRIGHT ET AL., supra note 161 at § 2883 (“Plainly Rule 61 teaches that the proceedings are not to
be disturbed because of an error that prejudiced no one.”).
163
See, e.g., United States v. Luna, 649 F.3d 91, 103–04 (1st Cir. 2011) (stating that while
“[e]vidence must be authenticated before it may be admitted,” the failure to do so need not result
in remand if, for example, prior testimony supported the same conclusion because it would render
the error harmless).
164
See id.
165
2009 WL 7361370, at *3.
166
Id.
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
764
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
One case on which the court relied in Beazley was In re Volkswagen,167
a much-discussed decision168 also decided by the Fifth Circuit. The
Volkswagen litigation involved a mandamus petition from a litigant whose
motion to transfer to a different venue had been denied.169 The Fifth Circuit
eventually granted the petition,170 but not without a protracted struggle with
a host of issues raised by the petition.171 The Court had no apparent
difficulty, however, in determining that the petitioner had satisfied the
mandamus requirement that a petitioner “have no other adequate means to
attain . . . relief . . . .”172 According to the court, that requirement was
“certainly satisfied”173 in that case because of the difficulty petitioner would
have in winning an appeal after a final judgment.174 The harmless-error rule
would require the petitioner “to show that it would have won the case had it
been tried in [the legally correct forum].”175
In addition to its Volkswagen precedent, the Beazley court also cited
Judge Posner’s opinion in In re National Presto Industrial Inc.176 as support
for its conclusion that mandamus was appropriate.177 The Presto litigation
involved a suit by the Securities and Exchange Commission against
National Presto Industries (“Presto”) in federal district court in Chicago.178
167
545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008).
See, e.g., Elizabeth Durham, Will All Roads Still Lead to the Eastern District of Texas?
Transfer Practice After Volkswagen and TS Tech, 21 INTELL. PROP. & TECH. L.J. 12 (2009);
Paul M. Janicke, Patent Venue and Convenience Transfer: New World or Small Shift?, 11 N.C. J.
L. & TECH. ONLINE EDUC. (2009); Donald W. Rupert & Daniel H. Shulman, Clarifying,
Confusing, or Changing the Legal Landscape: A Sampling of Recent Cases from the Federal
Circuit, 19 FED. CIR. B.J. 521, 526–36 (2010).
169
Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 308.
170
Id. at 319.
171
There were three opinions by the Fifth Circuit in this litigation. The initial panel denied
the mandamus petition, In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 223 F. App’x 305 (5th Cir. 2007), but then
reversed course on rehearing and granted the petition, In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 506 F.3d
376 (5th Cir. 2007). This result was confirmed by the entire court in a rehearing en banc. In re
Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 517 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2008).
172
Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 311 (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367,
380–81 (2004)).
173
Id. at 318.
174
Id.
175
Id. at 319.
176
347 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2003).
177
In re Beazley Ins. Co., No. 09-20005, 2009 WL 7361370, at *3 (5th Cir. May 4, 2009) (per
curiam).
178
In re Nat’l Presto, 347 F.3d at 663.
168
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
765
Presto filed a motion requesting a change of venue based on “convenience”
and “justice.”179 This motion was denied by the district court,180 and Presto
sought mandamus review of this decision by the Seventh Circuit.181 The
opinion by Judge Posner begins with the question of whether Presto had
satisfied the mandamus requirement that “the challenged order cannot be
repaired by any means other than mandamus . . . .”182 Judge Posner
concludes, without citation to authority, that Presto had satisfied this
requirement because Presto “would not be able to show that it would have
won the case had it been tried in a convenient forum.”183
The Beazley, Volkswagen, and Presto cases all involve slightly different
factual contexts. The Beazley case involved mandamus from the denial of a
remand motion to state court, which is the specific issue to which this
article is devoted.184 The Volkwagen case involved mandamus from the
denial of a motion for a venue change.185 And the Presto case involved
mandamus from the denial of a motion to transfer based on forum non
conveniens.186 Yet, despite these factual distinctions, the conclusion in
favor of mandamus in each of these cases follows an identical analytical
path. In each, the court draws the conclusion that mandamus is proper
based on the premise that any error made by the court would be harmless.
As explained below, the premise relied on by the courts in these three cases
is questionable. Even if the premise is valid, however, the conclusion
drawn from it is unsound.
179
Id.
Id.
181
Id.
182
Id.
183
Id. The mandamus petition in Presto was eventually denied, as the court concluded that
Presto had not satisfied the requirement that the lower court’s ruling was “patently erroneous.”
See id. at 663–64. The court in Presto could have reached this conclusion against mandamus
without even offering an opinion on whether Presto had satisfied the mandamus requirement that
there be no adequate remedy on appeal. See id. The court’s opinion on this issue, then, was obiter
dicta. Considering the deficiencies in the analysis employed by the Seventh Circuit in Presto
(explored in the Article below), and considering that the Presto opinion by Judge Posner seems to
be the origin of the modern progeny of cases such as Beazley and Volkswagen, the court would
have been well advised to avoid this dicta.
184
In re Beazley Ins. Co., No. 09-20005, 2009 WL 7361370, at *1 (5th Cir. May 4, 2009) (per
curiam).
185
In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 308 (5th Cir. 2008).
186
In re Nat’l Presto, 347 F.3d at 663.
180
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
766
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
First, it is not entirely clear that the premise on which the conclusions in
Beazley, Volkswagen, and Presto are based is accurate. In each case, the
court seemed fairly certain that the alleged error by the district court would
be harmless error in an appeal after a final judgment, although in each
opinion this conclusion was reached without citation to convincing
authority.187 Moreover, there is some case law suggesting the exact
opposite of what was assumed in Beazley, Volkswagen, and Presto.188
An underlying difficulty in this area is that courts and commentators
have not settled upon a clear standard for measuring whether a district
court’s error is harmless. At a surface level, the harmless-error concept is
intuitive and easily comprehendible: A final decision should not be
reversed simply because of an error that had no impact on the underlying
litigation. Beneath this surface level, however, challenging complexities
exist. As Professor Sunderland noted long ago: “The problem of
[harmless] error is a problem in professional psychology. No rules can be
framed which will solve it . . . .”189 The harmless-error rule is articulated by
courts and commentators in wildly different manners that reflect actual
conceptual, rather than semantic, differences.190 Moreover, even if this
187
See Beazley, 2009 WL 7361370, at *3; Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 318–19; In re Nat’l
Presto, 347 F.3d at 663.
188
See, e.g., McKinney v. Bd. of Trs., 955 F.2d 924, 927–28 (4th Cir. 1992) (affirming the
denial of a remand motion asserting procedural grounds, in an appeal after a final judgment,
without considering whether the alleged error is harmless); Wilson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 888
F.2d 779, 780–81 (11th Cir. 1989) (same); Marbury-Pattillo Constr. Co. v. Bayside Warehouse
Co., 490 F.2d 155, 157–58 (5th Cir. 1974) (affirming the denial of a transfer motion, in an appeal
after a final judgment, without considering whether the alleged error is harmless). There is also
substantial case law suggesting that the denial of any sort of transfer order is harmless in an appeal
after a final judgment. See 15 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE § 3855 (3d ed. 2007) (citing cases for the proposition that an error in a transfer
decision is “very unlikely to constitute reversible error” in an appeal after a final judgment). See
generally Christina Melady Morin, Note, Review and Appeal of Forum Non Conveniens and
Venue Transfer Orders, 59 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 715, 727–28 (1991) (discussing the frequency
with which forum non conveniens or venue transfer decisions by a district court are reversed in an
appeal after a final judgment).
189
Edson R. Sunderland, The Problem of Appellate Review, 5 TEX. L. REV. 126, 146–47
(1927).
190
Compare Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 116 (1943) (“He who seeks to have a
judgment set aside because of an erroneous ruling carries the burden of showing that prejudice
resulted.”), with Citron v. Aro Corp., 377 F.2d 750, 753 (3d Cir. 1967) (reversing erroneous
decision of district court because prejudice was “within the range of possibility, [therefore] a
demonstration of prejudice was not required.”).
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
767
problem was resolved and a unified approach for determining harmless
error was settled upon, the application of this test in actual litigation would
usually seem to require a case-by-case approach. The Supreme Court has
warned “against attempting to generalize broadly”191 in determining
whether an error is harmless, and one leading commentator has concluded
that “[i]n considering whether an error [i]s harmless, the court necessarily
must look to the circumstances of the particular case, and decision in other
cases are of only limited value.”192 Thus, there are reasons to doubt that the
premise on which the Beazley, Volkswagen, and Presto cases is based—that
the alleged error made by the district court in refusing to transfer the
litigation to another forum would be harmless in an appeal after a final
judgment—is accurate.
Even if this premise is accurate, though, the conclusion that the Beazley,
Volkswagen, and Presto cases drew from it cannot withstand close scrutiny.
The court in each of those cases reasoned that mandamus must be available
to review a particular ruling because an appeal of that ruling after final
judgment would prove unsuccessful because of the harmless-error rule.193
Indeed, there is a tempting appeal to the logic that an error must be
corrected on mandamus because it cannot be corrected in appeal after a
final judgment. This logic, however, is erroneous. The analytical error is in
assuming that every district court mistake should be correctable on appeal
after a final judgment or correctable through mandamus. In reality,
however, district court errors are often insulated from appellate court
review in an appeal after a final judgment by a variety of different rules
serving various policy objectives.194 The potential application of these
calibrated rules in an appeal does not render an appeal an inadequate
remedy.
Consider, for instance, the well-settled rule that an appellant cannot win
an appeal after a final judgment if the error has not been preserved in the
district court.195 Under the rationale employed in Beazley, Volkswagen, and
191
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 (1946).
WRIGHT ET AL., supra note 161 at § 2883.
193
See In re Beazley Ins. Co., No. 09-20005, 2009 WL 7361370, at *3 (5th Cir. May 4, 2009)
(per curiam); In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 319 (5th Cir. 2008); In re Nat’l
Presto Indus., Inc., 347 F.3d 662, 663 (7th Cir. 2003).
194
14C CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET. AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3740 (4th
ed. 2009).
195
See, e.g., Charter Sch. of Pine Grove, Inc. v. St. Helena Parish Sch. Bd., 417 F.3d 444, 447
(5th Cir. 2005) (“Ordinarily, arguments not raised in the district court cannot be asserted for the
192
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
768
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
Presto, the futility of an appeal after a final judgment based on an error that
was not preserved would justify mandamus review of that error. This
would, of course, entirely circumvent the policy objectives represented by
the error-preservation rule.196 An appeal is “inadequate” in the sense that
the party losing that ruling cannot prevail. But that doesn’t make appeal an
inadequate remedy thereby justifying mandamus. Unpreserved errors are
errors, but they possess a trait—unpreservedness—that defines the very
reason a party cannot prevail on an appeal. Similarly, some errors are
considered “harmless errors” because they are insufficiently likely to
impact the final result in the case.197 If an error possesses that harmless
trait, the error will not produce a successful appeal after final judgment.198
The existence of a trait that the law deems fatal to an appeal ought not be
the justification for declaring the appellate remedy inadequate. Otherwise,
the threshold mandamus requirement—which is supposed to keep
mandamus from circumventing the appellate process—would be met
precisely because this type of error cannot be successfully challenged on
appeal.
Indeed, under the Beazley, Volkswagen, and Presto logic, the more
mundane and unimportant the district court ruling, the more appropriate it is
for mandamus review. Consider how the Beazley, Volkswagen, and Presto
logic would apply to a mandamus petition requesting appellate court review
of a district court’s decision to admit hearsay testimony. Assuming that this
hearsay testimony is cumulative of other similar evidence which has been,
or will be, admitted at trial, the erroneous admission of this evidence would
almost surely constitute harmless error in an appeal after a final
first time on appeal.”); Holland v. Big River Minerals Corp., 181 F.3d 597, 605 (4th Cir. 1999)
(“Generally, issues that were not raised in the district court will not be addressed on appeal.”).
196
See Derrick Augustus Carter, A Restatement of Exceptions to the Preservation of Error
Requirement in Criminal Cases, 46 U. KAN. L. REV. 947, 950 (1998) (examining the justifications
for the error-preservation rule in the criminal law context but identifying concepts that apply
equally in civil litigation). The problem with the logic used in Beazley, Volkswagen, and Presto
can also be exposed by considering the following hypothetical: what if Congress imposed an
amount-in-controversy requirement on appellate jurisdiction? Under the Beazley, Volkswagen,
and Presto logic, legal errors in the lower-valued trial proceedings would warrant mandamus
review because the litigant would be unable to satisfy Congress’s requirement for prosecuting an
appeal. This, of course, would completely undermine the policy reasons supporting Congress’s
hypothetical decision to limit appeal to cases involving a sufficient amount in controversy. See 28
U.S.C. § 1291 (2006).
197
See 28 U.S.C. § 2111; FED. R. CIV. P. 61.
198
See 28 U.S.C. § 2111; FED. R. CIV. P. 61.
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
769
judgment.199 Yet, under the Beazley, Volkswagen, and Presto logic, the
harmless nature of this error would render appeal an inadequate remedy.
Indeed, because “[c]laims of error with regard to the admission or exclusion
of evidence are prime candidates for application of the harmless[-]error
rule,”200 the entire panoply of evidentiary rulings made by a district court
would become the fodder of mandamus review under the logic of Beazley,
Volkswagen, and Presto.201
The fundamental mistake in Beazley, Volkswagen, and Presto is in
assuming that an appeal after final judgment is not adequate simply because
that appeal will be unsuccessful. In reality, an appellant’s opportunity to
appeal after a final judgment is not inadequate simply because that appeal
might ultimately prove unsuccessful. A successful appeal is not generally
guaranteed in our system, and there are delicate policy considerations
represented by the rules that—like the harmless-error rule or the
requirement that a litigant preserve error—sometimes preclude a successful
appeal even though error was made in the court below.202 In Beazley,
Volkswagen, and Presto, the court lost sight of this bigger picture in favor
of the attractive (but wrong) argument that a litigant is absolutely entitled to
have a district court’s error corrected on appeal.
This is not to say, however, that the intuition driving the courts in
Beazley, Volkswagen, and Presto was entirely incorrect. In each of these
cases, the court was obviously troubled with the notion that an incorrect
interlocutory ruling on forum selection might go unremedied in an appeal
after a final judgment.203 As briefly discussed above, it is not entirely clear
199
See United States v. Robinson, 639 F.3d 489, 493 (8th Cir. 2011) (holding the admitted
hearsay evidence harmless because it mirrored prior testimony and was, thus, cumulative
evidence). See also Coughlin v. Capitol Cement Co., 571 F.2d 290, 307–08 (5th Cir. 1978)
(holding the admission of hearsay evidence harmless when it was cumulative to other evidence
tending to prove the same proposition).
200
WRIGHT ET AL., supra note 161 at § 2885.
201
Predictably, in the few instances in which mandamus has been actually used to seek review
of a district court evidentiary ruling, it has been refused. See, e.g., Durham v. Tasco, Inc., 630
F.2d 612, 613 (8th Cir. 1980); see also Adam N. Steinman, Reinventing Appellate Jurisdiction,
48 B.C. L. REV. 1237, 1273–75 (2007) (producing an exhaustive list of issues that have been
reviewed through mandamus and not listing any evidentiary rulings).
202
WRIGHT ET AL, supra note 194 at § 3740.
203
See In re Beazley Ins. Co., No. 09-20005, 2009 WL 7361370, at *3 (5th Cir. May 4, 2009)
(per curiam); In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 318 (5th Cir. 2008); In re Nat’l
Presto Indus., Inc., 347 F.3d 662, 663 (7th Cir. 2003).
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
770
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
whether, as a descriptive matter, the court was correct in this assumption.204
The court in each case, however, assumed this to be true even though, as a
normative matter, the court obviously disagreed that a forum question
should be considered harmless.205 Judges and litigants know that the forum
has a very real (though probably indeterminable) impact on the
proceedings. These courts are convinced that forum-selection rulings are
significant.
The problem in Beazley, Volkswagen, and Presto was that the courts
chose to correct, through mandamus, a perceived deficiency in the
harmless-error rule. This led the court in each case to adopt the faulty logic
discussed above, wherein an unsuccessful appeal is presumed to be an
inadequate appeal and therefore appellate review via mandamus is
appropriate because the ruling has some trait that systemically has been
determined to not justify appellate reversal. Stated simply, these courts are
convinced that forum-selection rulings are significant. The proper audience
for that argument is with the rule that defines when errors are significant:
the harmless-error rule. The answer is not to issue extraordinary writs
correcting errors on the very grounds that the system deems them too
insignificant to have appellate significance.206 Either a federal court’s
decision to retain a case is likely to have a significant impact on the
proceedings or it is not. If so, the wrong decision constitutes harmful,
reversible error. If not, the answer cannot be that errors in that category
now satisfy the mandamus threshold because they were determined to be
unlikely to significantly impact the proceedings.207
III. THE STATUTORY SURROUNDINGS SUPPORT A LIMITED ROLE FOR
MANDAMUS IN REVIEWING DENIED REMAND MOTIONS.
The final-judgment rule is likely not intuitive to most whose perspective
involves a case or a few cases. It is certainly easy to criticize in particular
204
See supra note 188 and accompanying text.
See Beazley, 2009 WL 7361370, at *3; Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 318; In re Nat’l Presto,
347 F.3d at 663.
206
As discussed supra in note 50, forum determinations such as those involved in a remand
motion are also likely candidates for certification under § 1292(b).
207
Similarly, if problems exist with regard to proving how a forum-selection ruling impacted
a trial, that too can be addressed in the harmless-error context. It is simply not sound to bypass
this inquiry and to declare that because a person cannot satisfy the harm showing on normal
appeal, the person can obtain the extraordinary writ whose threshold no-adequate-remedy
requirement is supposed to keep mandamus from circumventing the appellate process and rules.
205
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
771
cases when asking why a client ought to endure the pointless exercise of a
trial that will surely be undone because of some incorrect interlocutory
ruling, such as a denied motion to remand. But as discussed throughout this
article, the final-judgment rule is not focused on a particular case but rather
reflects the systemic consequences of allowing immediate interlocutory
appeals and the difficulty of prospectively defining cases where the balance
justifies the early appeal. Mandamus is not supposed to be a way to
circumvent these policies, and the adequate-remedy-by-appeal requirement
is the anti-circumvention prong.
When the final-judgment rule is respected and mandamus properly
limited, a cohesive and sensible picture emerges with regard to appellate
review of remand denials. First, allowing mandamus review of remand
denials would disrupt the congruity Congress obviously desired for the
remand context. Second, our conclusions with respect to the availability of
immediate appeals and mandamus in this context complement the similar
analysis and conclusion under the collateral-order doctrine. And third,
given recent rulemaking delegations, a court may properly conclude that
remand denials should be immediately appealable—but that court ought to
be the Supreme Court exercising its delegated rulemaking powers, not
lower courts relaxing the finality requirements or expanding the mandamus
powers.
A. Allowing Mandamus Review of Remand Denials Disrupts the NoReview Congruity Congress Desired and Enacted in the Remand
Context.
Disallowing immediate review of remand denials is consistent with
Congress’s scheme and hardly unfair to plaintiffs. Congress implemented a
scheme where neither grants nor denials of remand motions are reviewable
before the parties litigate the merits. A remand grant based on a lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction or a defect in removal procedure is already
unreviewable by appeal or by mandamus because of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)’s
statutory bar.208 This restriction on appellate review of remand grants is not
just a delay; it is a bar forever. Once the case is sent back to state court,
there is no opportunity to challenge the remand order.209 So, while a
208
28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006); Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224,
229–30 (2007).
209
Indeed, a district court cannot even choose to certify such a remand order under § 1292(b).
Feidt v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., 153 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 1998) (attempted certification of a
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
772
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
plaintiff may have to delay challenging the federal court’s decision to retain
the case, a defendant is forever barred from challenging a remand grant that
is even colorably based on a defect in subject-matter jurisdiction or removal
procedure.210
So then, two different statutory restrictions converge to create a scheme
that disallows pre-merits review of remand-motion rulings. The remand
denial is generally unreviewable because of the final-judgment rule.211
And, a remand grant is generally unreviewable because of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(d).212 The Supreme Court long ago observed this congruity:
Congress, by the adoption of these provisions, as thus
construed, established the policy of not permitting
interruption of the litigation of the merits of a removed
cause by prolonged litigation of questions of jurisdiction of
the district court to which the cause is removed. This was
accomplished by denying any form of review of an order of
remand and, before final judgment, of an order denying
remand.213
remand order governed by § 1447(d) is “inappropriate and does not circumvent the section
1447(d) jurisdictional bar”); Krangel v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 968 F.2d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 1992)
(holding that § 1447(d) precluded it from granting a § 1292(b) petition for permission to appeal);
In re TMI Litig. Cases Consol. II, 940 F.2d 832, 846 (3rd Cir. 1991) (suggesting in dicta that
review under § 1292(b) would not be available); Ray v. Am. Nat’l Red Cross, 921 F.2d 324, 326
(D.C. Cir. 1990); In re Rosenthal-Block China Corp., 278 F.2d 713, 714 (2d Cir. 1960) (citing In
re Bear River with approval); In re Bear River Drainage Dist., 267 F.2d 849, 851 (10th Cir. 1959)
(holding that § 1292(b) does not apply to allow an appeal otherwise precluded by § 1447(d)). Nor
can the district court avoid the bar by certifying an appeal before ruling on the remand motion.
Ray, 921 F.2d at 324.
210
Powerex, 551 U.S. at 234. In a sense, if the plaintiff is confident in the jurisdictional
argument, the plaintiff may get two proverbial bites at the apple because if the plaintiff wins on
the merits she will not reurge her jurisdictional objection. If the plaintiff loses and prevails on the
jurisdictional argument, the case will be remanded for trial in the state court. Of course, this
analysis is complicated by the fact that, however disfavored and impractical it may be, the
removing defendant can himself raise the jurisdictional objection should the plaintiff prevail on
the merits. See Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Mich. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 388–89
(1884).
211
28 U.S.C. § 1291. See supra Part I.
212
Id. § 1447(d); Powerex Corp., 551 U.S. at 229 (“The authority of appellate courts to
review district-court orders remanding removed cases to state court is substantially limited by
statute. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) . . . .”).
213
United States v. Rice, 327 U.S. 742, 751 (1946).
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
773
It is sometimes difficult for an appellate judge to be told that a ruling
perceived to be incorrect is beyond correction, whether by § 1447(d)’s bar
on reviewing remand grants or the mandamus limitations that prevent
immediate review of remand denials. And if one were to start with the
assumption that the unreviewable ruling were wrong, then it would indeed
be easy to conclude that it is pointless or “absurd”214 to not correct such an
obviously wrong ruling. Why, one might ask, would Congress ever pass a
statute forbidding review of obviously wrong rulings? But that misses the
point of no-review statutes. They prevent courts from hearing certain
challenges because hearing all challenges within that category imposes
costs. Preventing courts only from hearing unmeritorious challenges
prevents no meaningful limitation because the judicial proceeding is
necessary to determine the challenge’s meritorious nature.215 And, it
doesn’t take much litigation experience to understand the practical center of
these types of rules: parties who lose believe they have meritorious
challenges.
We can see this flawed thinking present itself in the way courts
sometimes address whether mandamus is available. Take the first panel
decision in Crystal Power.216 There, the court notes the three mandamus
requirements, the first of which is whether there are no other means to
obtain the relief it desires (or, no adequate remedy by appeal.).217 But the
panel nonetheless starts with the second requirement, which evaluates
whether the district court was clearly wrong.218 Having started with “was
there clear error,” the court then finds itself in the unpleasant circumstance
of later lamenting the pointlessness of sending this case back to be
inevitably reversed.219 Surely Congress wouldn’t have wanted to prevent an
interlocutory challenge to an incorrect ruling! At that level of specificity,
we suppose the exclamation is correct. But Congress cannot advance
214
In re Dutile, 935 F.2d 61, 64 (5th Cir. 1991) (first resolving the jurisdictional challenge
and then declaring that it would be absurd to not correct the error).
215
See Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633, 649 (Scalia, J., concurring).
216
In re Crystal Power Co., 641 F.3d 78, 81 (5th Cir.), opinion withdrawn and superseded by
641 F.3d 82 (5th Cir. 2011).
217
Id. at 81.
218
Id. at 81–82.
219
In re Crystal Power Co., 641 F.3d 82, 85 n.10 (“We confess puzzlement over why
respondents insist on litigating this case in federal court even though, as our previous opinion
explained, any judgment issued by the district court will surely be reversed—no matter which side
it favors—for lack of federal jurisdiction due to improper removal.”).
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
774
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
efficiency by defining worthy challengers as those who will win, and courts
confuse the purpose and function of no-challenge statutes when they first
perform the forbidden task (evaluating the challenge) and then lament the
fact that they cannot correct the problem they were not supposed to
evaluate.220
But, answered the Crystal Power panel, appellate courts can minimize
delay and disruption by sternly insisting that mandamus petitions present
not just errors but “clear and indisputable errors.”221 This requirement
seems daunting, but clear-error review presents no obstacle when the
argument is a question of law,222 which will often be the case with
jurisdiction-based remand motions. Indeed, although standards such as
“clear abuse of discretion” and “clear error” seem to capture only a small
bit of egregious district-judge conduct, a judge will be found to have clearly
erred or abused her discretion by incorrectly answering even a legal
question of first impression.223 Ultimately, the panel’s insistence that courts
of appeals are “fully capable”224 of sorting out the winners from the losers
by mandamus overemphasizes the nature of clear-error review on legal
questions, circumvents the two appellate remedies available, and
220
See, e.g., BancOhio Corp v. Fox, 516 F.2d 29, 33 (6th Cir. 1975) (concluding that the
district court had no jurisdiction and then turning to the question whether this court should issue a
writ of mandamus); Direct Transit Lines, Inc. v. Starr, 219 F.2d 699, 701 (6th Cir. 1955) (after
resolving the merits of a jurisdictional challenge, stating: “[D]espite the opinion we have
expressed, we should refrain from issuing a writ of mandamus, since the district court’s refusal to
remand will be reviewable upon appeal appropriately taken from a final judgment. We reach this
conclusion with reluctance, realizing as we do the inconvenience, delay and expense to the
litigants that it may occasion, but our conclusion is dictated by authority.”). Indeed, the Ninth
Circuit has now declared that whether there is “clear error” as a matter of law is the dispositive
factor that must be addressed first. It is easy to be seduced by the word “clear,” but the deference
it purportedly creates is an illusion when applied to questions of law, which will usually be the
proper characterization of remand motions.
221
641 F.3d at 84 n.6.
222
In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 688 F.2d 1297, 1305–07 (9th Cir. 1982); see also Sec. &
Exch. Comm’n. v. Rajaratnam, 622 F.3d 159, 171 (2d Cir. 2010) (“A district court abuses its
discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)). Despite scary-sounding adjectives, it’s difficult to find federal appellate opinions
deferring to district-court resolutions of legal questions, whether the standard of review is
described as abuse of discretion, clear error, or de novo. See Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81,
100 (1996).
223
San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.—N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1099
(9th Cir. 1999); In re Von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 97 (2d Cir. 1987).
224
In re Crystal Power, 641 F.3d at 84–85 n.6.
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
775
undermines the policy Congress enacted generally prohibiting any party
from delaying merits proceeding to review immediately a remand-motion
ruling.
The lessons of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) are still being learned, and one
would hope appellate courts would not repeat their sins. There is an eerie
resemblance between the § 1447(d) cases involving appellate review of
orders granting remand and the remand-denial cases we have been
discussing. In both situations, statutes prohibit appellate review of remand
orders. Both statutes impose categorical rules whose purpose is thwarted
by ad hoc review. Yet, in the § 1447(d) context, the Supreme Court just
could not resist allowing bad facts to make bad law, and it opened the door
to reviewing some orders anyway in Thermtron.225 Although we point the
reader to others for a detailed description of this line of cases,226 it seems
safe to describe its approach as less than aspirational. Justice Scalia’s
observation in a recent § 1447(d) case, quoting the majority opinion, is a
fitting way to sum up the result: “How can a statute explicitly eliminating
appellate jurisdiction to review a remand order not ‘control’ whether an
appellate court has jurisdiction to review a remand order?”227 Similar
conceptual problems plague the use of mandamus to circumvent the finaljudgment rule and the interlocutory-review scheme Congress did enact.
And the first step towards that folly is starting with the forbidden
interlocutory review of the legal issue and then evaluating whether a court
ought to be able to review the wrong ruling it was not supposed to be
reviewing.
225
Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (1976), abrogated in part by
Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996).
226
Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1862, 1868 (2009) (Stevens, J.,
concurring) (stating that “stare decisis compels the conclusion that the District Court’s remand
order is reviewable notwithstanding § 1447(d)’s unambiguous contrary command”); Id. (Scalia,
J., concurring) (“[O]ur decision in Thermtron was questionable in its day and is ripe for
reconsideration in the appropriate case.”); Id. at 1869–70 (Breyer, J., concurring) (“Consequently,
while joining the majority, I suggest that experts in this area of the law reexamine the matter with
an eye toward determining whether statutory revision is appropriate.”); see also Pfander, supra
note 1 (describing the “quiet crisis” created by the Supreme Court’s treatment of the appellate
review of remand orders).
227
Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225, 264–65 (2007) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
776
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
B. Collateral-Order Doctrine
The collateral-order doctrine is a fiction that, technically, is not an
exception to the final-judgment rule. Instead, this fiction deems a narrow
category of rulings “final” thereby satisfying the final-judgment rule.228
The Supreme Court has steadily narrowed the doctrine’s scope,229 and
recently reaffirmed that little room exists for the doctrine’s expansion.230
From those opinions and those of lower courts, it is obvious enough that the
collateral-order doctrine does not make remand denials categorically
appealable, and therefore we do not delve deeply into the doctrine. Instead,
we describe the intersection of the two doctrines to demonstrate consistency
with our preceding analysis.
Although interlocutory immunity-from-suit rulings are reviewable under
the collateral-order doctrine,231 courts have routinely rejected attempts to
extend the doctrine to jurisdictional rulings that do not involve immunity
from suit.232 This consistent rejection stems from a restriction on collateralorder review that resembles mandamus’s no-adequate-remedy prong:233 to
obtain collateral-order review, the appellant must show that the order being
appealed is of a category “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final
judgment.”234 The same anti-circumvention rationale that informs the
mandamus inquiry, therefore, also informs the scope of the collateral-order
doctrine. That is, the anticipated cost of the final-judgment rule (the time
and expense of awaiting appeal after final judgment) cannot be the rationale
for declaring an appeal an ineffective review.235 “As long as the class of
228
See Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S.Ct. 599, 605 (2009).
Id. at 609. See Glynn, supra note 31 at 204.
230
See Mohawk, 130 S. Ct. at 609.
231
E.g., P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 147 (1993)
(holding that an order denying a claim of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity is
immediately appealable as a collateral order); Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526–30 (1985)
(holding that an order denying qualified immunity is immediately appealable as a collateral order).
232
E.g., N.J., Dep’t of Treasury, Div. of Inv. v. Fuld, 604 F.3d 816, 822–24 (3d Cir. 2010)
(overruling Dieffenbach v. CIGNA, Inc., 310 F. App’x 504 (3d Cir. 2009)); Neal v. Brown, 980
F.2d 747, 748–49 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Rohrer, Hibler & Replogle, Inc. v. Perkins, 728 F.2d 860,
862–63 (7th Cir. 1984); see also Estate of Bishop ex rel. Bishop v. Bechtel Power Corp., 905
F.2d 1272, 1275 (9th Cir. 1990).
233
In re Papandreou, 139 F.3d 247, 250 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (“The two clearly have one element
in common: mandamus’s ‘no other adequate means’ requirement tracks [the collateral-order] bar
on issues effectively reviewable on appeal.”).
234
Mohawk, 130 S. Ct. at 605.
235
See Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 US 863, 868 (1994) (citing Van
229
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
777
claims, taken as a whole, can be adequately vindicated by other means, ‘the
chance that the litigation at hand might be speeded, or a “particular
injustic[e]” averted,’ does not” justify application of the doctrine.236
The case we have made for properly constraining mandamus is in line
with and supports the courts’ refusal to treat remand denials as collateral
orders. First, with regard to denial of jurisdiction-based remand motions,
neither mandamus nor the collateral-order doctrine can justifiably
recalibrate the final-judgment rule by accepting the anticipated costs of the
rule as the reason for an exception to it.237 Second, with regard to remand
motions not based on jurisdiction, making the harmless-error-based
argument is as flawed there (to argue that the issue is effectively
unreviewable) as it was in the mandamus context (to argue that appeal was
an inadequate remedy). Once again, any argument for the issue being
“effectively” unreviewable on appeal would be a misplaced attack on the
harmless-error rule.
C. Rulemaking Delegation
The astute reader will by now have recognized that the arguments
advanced in this Article are descriptive rather than normative. Our
conclusion that remand denials are usually only appealable after a final
judgment is based on a straightforward application of the controlling
congressional statutes and the established Supreme Court cases interpreting
Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 529 (1988)).
236
Mohawk, 130 S. Ct. at 605–06 (quoting Van Cauwenberghe, 486 U.S. at 529).
237
Supra note 229 and accompanying text; Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 30
(1943) (“Respondents stress the inconvenience of requiring them to undergo a trial in advance of
an appellate determination of the challenge now made to the validity of the indictment. We may
assume, as they allege, that that trial may be of several months’ duration and may be
correspondingly costly and inconvenient. But that inconvenience is one which we must take it
Congress contemplated in providing that only final judgments should be reviewable.”); In re
Huguley Mfg. Co., 184 U.S. 297, 301 (1902) (“[T]he writ of mandamus cannot be used to perform
the office of an appeal or writ of error, and is only granted as a general rule where there is no other
adequate remedy.”); In re Blake, 175 U.S. 114, 117 (1899) (“The writ of mandamus cannot be
issued to compel a judicial tribunal to decide a matter within its discretion in a particular way, or
to review its judicial action had in the exercise of legitimate jurisdiction, nor be used to perform
the office of an appeal or writ of error. And it only lies, as a general rule, where there is no other
adequate remedy.”); Ex parte Hoard, 105 U.S. 578, 580 (1881) (denying mandamus review where
the case could be reviewed after a final judgment, stating that “it is an elementary principle that a
mandamus cannot be used to perform the office of an appeal or a writ of error”); In re Ivy, 901
F.2d 7, 10 (2d Cir. 1990) (quoting Roche, 319 U.S. at 26–31).
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
778
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
[Vol. 63:3
these statutes. These statutes are based on value judgments made by
Congress.238
The most fundamental value judgment made by Congress, of course, is
that which underlies the final-judgment rule. As discussed above, the finaljudgment rule is Congress’s primary answer to the competing interests that
are implicated in determining when a litigant can seek appellate review of
an unfavorable ruling.239 Since the original Judiciary Act of 1789, the finaljudgment rule has been a mainstay of statutes defining the appellate
jurisdiction of federal appellate courts.240
Despite Congress’s long-standing use of the final-judgment rule, it has
been willing to reconsider the policy considerations that are implicated in
determining when a litigant can appeal to an appellate court. The All Writs
Act represents a built-in safety valve for unique issues that do not lend
themselves to meaningful appellate consideration after a final judgment.241
The adoption of § 1292 represents a congressional realization that, in
certain circumstances, the benefits of an immediate appeal outweigh the
usual advantages of allowing an appeal only after a final judgment.242
Along these same lines, and much more recently, Congress again
addressed this general topic by amending the Rules Enabling Act243 to give
the Supreme Court additional rulemaking power in this area. In 1990,
Congress authorized the Court to adopt rules “defin[ing] when a ruling of a
district court is final for the purposes of appeal under section 1291.”244
Shortly thereafter, Congress enacted a provision that gives the Supreme
Court the power to “prescribe rules . . . to provide for an appeal of an
238
See supra notes 28–32 and accompanying text.
See supra note 28 and accompanying text.
240
See Martineau supra note 15, at 726 (“The final judgment rule and the problems it causes
were introduced to the federal legal system by three sections of the statute that established the
federal court system, the Judiciary Act of 1789.”).
241
See, e.g., Eisenberg v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Ill., 910 F.2d 374, 375 (7th Cir. 1990)
(“It is true that mandamus is one of the safety valves [on the final judgment] rule but it is one of
the tightest.”); Amy Schmidt Jones, The Use of Mandamus to Vacate Mass Exposure Tort Class
Certification Orders, 72 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 232, 239 (1997) (“[T]he All Writs Act permit[s] the
courts to provide for interlocutory appellate review when rigid adherence to the final judgment
rule may result in injustice.” (footnotes omitted)).
242
See Solimine supra note 50, at 1169 (describing § 1292(b) as an exception to the finaljudgment rule that “can save cost and time by shortening, streamlining or terminating the
litigation”).
243
28 U.S.C. § 2072(c) (2006).
244
Id.; Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599, 609 (2009).
239
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
2011]
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
779
interlocutory decision to the courts of appeals that is not otherwise provided
for under [§ 1292].”245
These recent amendments to the Rules Enabling Act are important in
signaling (1) Congress’s willingness to reconsider the advantages and
disadvantages of interlocutory review before a final judgment, and
(2) Congress’s strong preference that reforms in this area be accomplished
through a methodical and contemplative process. The Supreme Court has
acknowledged the import of these amendments:
Congress thus has empowered this Court to clarify when
a decision qualifies as “final” for appellate review
purposes, and to expand the list of orders appealable on an
interlocutory basis. The procedure Congress ordered for
such changes, however, is not expansion by court decision,
but by rulemaking . . . . Our rulemaking authority is
constrained by §§ 2073 and 2074, which require, among
other things, that meetings of bench-bar committees
established to recommend rules ordinarily be open to the
public, § 2073(c)(1), and that any proposed rule be
submitted to Congress before the rule takes effect,
§ 2074(a). Congress’[s] designation of the rulemaking
process as the way to define or refine when a district court
ruling is “final” and when an interlocutory order is
appealable warrants the Judiciary’s full respect.246
For the reader interested in the normative question as to whether remand
denials should be appealable before a final judgment, this rulemaking
process represents the legitimate mechanism for implementing any desired
changes in this area of the law. This Article takes no position on this
normative issue. There are certainly plausible arguments in favor of general
interlocutory review of remand denials. This normative debate might be
worth having. If so, it should be through the formal rulemaking process
that Congress has required. Attempting to implement any normative
conclusions outside this rulemaking process undermines the balance that
Congress has struck in this area and the process that Congress has required
for reconsidering this balance.
245
246
Mohawk, 130 S. Ct. at 609.
Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 48 (1995).
RYAN.POSTMACRO.3 (DO NOT DELETE)
780
12/13/2011 8:38 PM
BAYLOR LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 63:3
IV. CONCLUSION
When a motion to remand to state court is denied by a federal district
court, various issues arise regarding when a party can challenge that ruling.
These issues, however, are not unique to the remand context, and instead
are the common issues presented by interlocutory rulings and contemplated
by the final-judgment rule. Thus, the timing of an appeal from a remand
denial must be answered by the same principles that govern the timing of an
appeal for other interlocutory orders. Recent attempts to use mandamus to
categorically except remand-denial rulings from these principles have been
incorrect. Therefore, interlocutory review is not generally available absent
truly extraordinary circumstances or the district court’s certification under
§ 1292(b).